Comments on: New Hampshire Does Gay Marriage Right

By: race42008.com » Blog Archive » How To Win

race42008.com » Blog Archive » How To Win — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 17:43:01 +0000

[...] Get out of debates that belong on the state level, such as gay marriage and marijuana policies. Federalism exists for a [...]

By: race42008.com » Blog Archive » Go After “Whole Foods Republicans”

Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:01:00 +0000

[...] Afghanistan, cap-and-trade, health care etc.? Too, conservatives should back gay marriage being handled on a state level, as we are supposed to believe in [...]

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 20:20:09 +0000

Spartacus: No, I haven't condemned Sotomayor's willingness to consider the arguments of minorities.

What disturbs me, is her claim (repeated several times over the years) that a female Hispanic judge can better understand the claims of female Hispanic petitioners than a white male judge can. That she understands the claims of Hispanic petitioners, not because she is liberal or because she's progressive or because she studied the problems of minorities, but because she's "one of them" herself. It's a racialist claim, and a deeply un-American one.

If that were true, then the Supreme Court would have ruled Brown v. Board of Education in favor of the Board (i.e., in favor of continuing segregation)--since the Court was 8 to 1 white (only Marshall was black).

Justice and the law shouldn't have to depend on seeking out "those of your own kind" to grant you favors. We have enough of that in politics. But the Supreme Court isn't supposed to be a *political* body. Its job is to make rulings consistent with the Constitution, period.

By: karengrube

karengrube — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 04:34:49 +0000

Continuing my comments . . .

My point is that this should be the people's choice, and the ability to make that choice was stolen from them in New Hampshire. Wherever the people of any state have been asked to vote on this issue, they have said "NO" to gay marriage. That's 30 states with constitutional amendments defining marriage as being between one man and one woman, and 15 with statutes prohibiting gay marriage. There's a reason for that. The only way the HRC and the Gill Foundation have been able to get gay marriage passed in any state is by funding the election of a gay-friendly legislature and pay for very expensive, very impressive litigation in State Supreme Courts. And they specifically target states that don't have an initiative process or people's referendum because they know that's the only way they'll ever get gay marriage approved in any state. But they blew it in Maine. The people there are going to repeal what was forced on them, like we did in California.

The upshot is this: I strongly believe in the collective wisdom of the people of a state to decide its direction. I also strongly believe the form of representative democracy seen in many states lately has been co-opted by a few very wealthy gay activists - the so-called Gay Mafia - to the extent that the wishes of the people are just being not only ignored, but intentionally gound underfoot and denegrated, so that everyone is being called a bigot or a hater who doesn't go along with the gay agenda. I find that totally reprehensible.

I'm sorry to be going on like this, but for the people to be so shamefully silenced by their own legislature and seeing them lied to by their Governor on such an important question as the definition of marriage angers me. If the people of any state had ever voted to allow gay marriage, that would be a totally different situation. But it is so clear that this is something most of the people of this country think is wrong for their state, that it's appalling to see their wishes and collective wisdom discounted and disrespected so completely. I think the definition of marriage is precisely the kind of issue the people of a state should be able to decide for themselves, and not have forced on them by their too-easily-influenced partisan legislature and state courts.

By: karengrube

karengrube — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 04:33:24 +0000

What the Governor and Legislature of New Hampshire did was completely beneath contempt! Reprehensible! How DARE they silence the voters on an issue like this? How DARE they let the Human Rights Campaign buy a vote like that? I am absolutely livid that the legislature totally misrepresented the voters they supposedly represented and forced gay marriage on a state that clearly DID NOT want it! That's outrageous! I have never used the term 'governor' as an expletive before, but I will from now on whenever I refer to Governor Lynch.

The good news is that there are plans in the works to allow the people of New Hampshire to have their say on this issue in non-binding resolution votes early next year. At least they'll be able to tell the legislature and the governor how wrong they were. The even better news is that people are so outraged at the conduct of the Democratic members of the legislature and a few Republicans that this will definitely change the leadership of their legislature next election. At that point, the legislature will be able to repeal this idiotic law, and my very strong guess is that the people will elect a legislature that will do just that. In the next few months, the people of Maine will have the opportunity repeal the gay marriage law that was forced on them with their people's veto.

I won't even discuss how absurd it is to talk about this issue in terms of equal protections and so-called civil rights. No one buys it that this is really a civil rights issue, and to call it that totally denegrates the very real Civil Rights movement of the 1960s and earlier that sought to redress centuries of vile treatment and suppression of Black Americans. I have never in my live hear of a gay person being denied the right to vote, or being beaten or had fire hoses turned on them because the wanted to vote, or being told to go to the back of the bus, and I have never seen a bathroom or drinking fountain that said "gays only." And I have never, ever, heard of a cross being burned in someone's front yard because they were gay. Besides that, how dare anyone make that comparison when Blacks are still living in poverty in greater percentages than White Americans. Their struggle for true Civil Rights isn't over yet! So don't even try to call this push for the acceptance of the gay lifestyle a civil rights issue.

Even the venerable American Psychological Association has backed off its search for a 'gay gene' and now call homosexuality a complex combination of genetics and external influences. Well, la dee dah! What in life isn't? I am so sick of the acceptance of this lifestyle choice being forced on us by the media and gay rights activists despite the damage that is absolutely intended by this push to religious freedom and traditional values.

By:

Sun, 07 Jun 2009 01:11:42 +0000

Sinz said: "Brown v. Board of Education would have been an impossible ruling in 1934. But it was almost inevitable in 1954."

The Equal Protection Clause was the same in 1934 as it was in 1954. The only difference was the perspective and experience of the justices who sat on the court. Yet, on several different threads on this site, you've condemned Obama's and Sotomayor's comments in which they applaude the ability of a judge to see the facts of a case from the perspective of a litigant.

Sotomayor made it perfectly clear that it's *possible* for a white male to value those facts of a case that might be important to a minority, but it may take more time and effort. If the judge is not willing to put in that time and effort, you get a certain kind of ruling (Plessy v. Ferguson). If, on the other hand, the judge does put in the time and effort, you get Brown v. Bd. of Educ.

Gay marriage is no different. A ban on same-sex marriage is clearly prohibited by the 14th Amendment, and the arguments in favor of a ban are no more compelling than the arguments for "separate, but equal." And, like "separate, but equal," bans on same-sex marriage will also be ruled unconstitutional.

And this will be just another in a very long list of issues in which conservatives were, yet again, on the wrong side.

By: dragonlady

dragonlady — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 16:17:48 +0000

palomino70 said: “But sometimes the federal judiciary has to break some eggs to make an omelette.” Do you have any idea who said this and the context? You may want to conclude your point in another way.

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 13:01:28 +0000

InTheMiddle12: The black experience confirms what I said.

World War II did much to show white America that black Americans could be just as patriotic and just as able to fight for their country. The horrors of the Nazi regime we were fighting, also turned off Americans to that sort of racialism.

Brown v. Board of Education would have been an impossible ruling in 1934. But it was almost inevitable in 1954.

By: BoolaBoola

BoolaBoola — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 03:07:54 +0000

The Government has no business trying to define or validate marriage.

Slaves need their masters to define and validate their marriages. Not free people.

The Government is not my master. I, and the other parties to, and participants in, my marriage, can say (and write) for ourselves what our marriage means.

By: Tenek

Tenek — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 23:56:50 +0000

sinz – the “law” provided for the equal protection of all Americans for 100 years before someone noticed – or more to the point, noticed, filed a lawsuit, and got a SCOTUS ruling affirming it. And no, there is no mention of sexual orientation – but there’s no mention of race in, say, the equal protection clause either. Apparently it was written by people who wanted more general protection instead of leaving loopholes around, and it is the job of the judicial branch to interpret the law that did pass, not the one that might have or should have passed. In exchange you get to live in a country significantly different from, say, Iran, where there is no equal protection for anyone.