Posts Tagged ‘proposition 8’

“who speaks for the people?”

Posted: August 17, 2010 by datechguy in internet/free speech, the courts
Tags: ,

Dafydd al Hugh doesn’t just score he breaks the backboard:

The whole point of a citizens’ initiative is to allow the voters themselves to enact reforms or repeal tyrannical laws, even when elected officials are corrupt, out of touch, or unwilling to listen. But if the governor can overturn such an initiative merely by refusing to defend it in the inevitable lawsuit, allowing opponents of the initiative to win by default, then the entire point of a citizens’ initiative is thwarted. (George Will would be overjoyed.)

Read the whole thing

…and Cynthia Yockey rebutts

Posted: August 6, 2010 by datechguy in internet/free speech, opinion/news, the courts
Tags: , ,

You’ve read and examined my opinion of Gay Marriage. Making the case for the other side a blogger I respect who is just as nice in person as she is committed to what she believes, my friend Cynthia Yockey:

The fundamental rationale social conservatives advance for denying equal treatment to lesbians and gays under the law — including the liberty and freedom to choose sexual partners and spouses on the same bases that straight people use: sexual attraction and love — is that gays are intrinsically evil.

This of course is not the Catholic position but the number of people who make that argument is not insignificant to say the least.

Read her whole post and her others on the subject. Her opinion is worth hearing and understanding. After all once can’t be secure in one’s own opinion and beliefs and be unwilling or unable to hear the other side without rancor.

Once again a court discovers new obligations that never existed before…

Posted: August 4, 2010 by datechguy in Uncategorized
Tags: , ,

…that is if Drudge is correct. Update: he is

Remember when civil unions came up and the claim was nobody was talking about gay marriage? I do.

Remember when the defense of marriage act was passed and people were claiming that a constitutional amendment was not necessary? I do.

The argument for gay marriage has been a study in prevarication during its pursuit. From the initial rulings in Vt. to the Massachusetts Supreme Court’s 4-3 ruling to apparently today, the courts have created and imposed upon the people non-existent rights among a populace that has strongly objected.

The advocates of Gay Marriage continue their fear of the people. When they can they have kept them from voting (re Massachusetts) and when they can’t get have used to courts to legislate what they can’t win at the ballot box all with the loving support of a media completely out of touch with the public.

So once again we will go to the higher courts until we reach the supreme court.

Again we have done this to ourselves, by voting in people who ignore our will, by electing people who appoint judges who legislate from the bench.

From healthcare to illegal immigration to this, our elected officials have continually ignored the people will. As long as the people allow them to get away with it, they will continue to do so.

memeorandum thread here.

Update: from the hotair post

the EP ruling is that there’s no rational basis for limiting marriage to straights.

If that is true I await the rational basis to deny polygamy from the court.

Update 2: Brian Brown on the ruling at the corner:

Q: What’s next for marriage in California?

A: This will go to the Supreme Court, where we expect to win. Remember that originally, the gay legal establishment opposed this case, because they fear what we anticipate: that they don’t yet have five votes for a constitutional right to gay marriage. Two lawyers with very big egos (Olson and Boies) pushed this case over more sober heads, and I think in the end gay-marriage advocates will regret that they did.

Time will tell.