What I find amusing is if the right would take the bible out of most of their arguments they would have none.
But I would like to comment briefly on the horrible choice the Supreme Court made yesterday upholding prop 8. They gave into the religious freaks who bullied their way into California from out of state. Really it's a case between the majority and what is right. The right thing would be to allow gay marriage. Bad choice.
4 comments:
They gave in to the religios freaks? How about, they upheld democracy. It was put to a vote and should have been the end of it.
They gave into religious freaks. That's the truth. Religious freaks who bought the add time to scare the populous with their ads, religious freaks who if you took the bible out of their argument wouldn't have any. Religious freaks who threatened to "go after" any judge who overturns the ban. Yes religious freaks.
For once, I'm with Robert on this. The Supreme Court upheld a lawful election under the strict terms of California law.
I totally disagree with the outcome of the election, but "vox populi vox Dei," as the saying goes. I think it would have been more legally dangerous to overturn the election results, and would have produced a rightful backlash against the judiciary, much as the 2000 U.S. Supreme Court case of Bush v. Gore did, when judges interfered with an election outcome (albeit in the latter case, the interference occurred before an outcome had been determined under Florida law).
If the California Supreme Court had given-in to the religious freaks, they would have voided all the marriages that did occur while gay marriage was briefly legal. They allowed those marriages to stand, and I think rightly so.
Robert is wrong, however, that the vote "should have been the end to it." Nope, under California's constitution, there will be more votes until one side or the other wears out. And I think that's the best way to decide this issue. Acceptance of gay marriage is inevitable. The legal acceptance will, I predict, occur the very next time this is on the ballot, in 2010. The social acceptance among all people will happen much faster when gay marriage wins on the ballot than it would have if the California Supreme Court had overturned the express outcome of a legal election.
Tom,
Thank you Tom for bringing your critical thinking into the conversation. Though we may disagree on many things, I freely acknowlege that you defend your arguments well - unlike a certain other individual who just tends to repeat his arguments and call me names.
For the record, I voted no on 8 because I don't think marriage should be defined by our government. In other words, if a religion supports an individual marrying a goat, than the members can call the individual "married" and the government does not have any say in the matter. That's where I'm coming from anyway.
One can make the argument that the issue should not have gone to a vote in the first place, but once it did, it would be dangersous as you pointed out to overturn the will of the people.
When I said "[the issue] was put to a vote and [that] should have been the end of it." I meant as far as Proposition 8 is concerned. I realize that doesn't end the debate.
Erik,
What is a "religious freak"? Since way more than half the population is religious in some form or another, are we all freaks?
Ever consider that California has a large latino population and that's a culture that, on the whole, is unacceptable of homosexuals? Much of the vote in favor of Proposition 8 came from them. Why aren't you mad at them?
Tell me again that I'm a hypocrite.
Post a Comment