3 Jul

With Prop 8 the cowardly Supreme Court eviscerates citizen’s rights

                                       

Louisiana is a great state. Home to Bourbon Street, jazz, and perhaps most importantly, the antics of the Robertsons of Duck Dynasty fame. On a less positive note the state is currently the home of the nation’s highest rate of births to unwed mothers, currently at 54% of all births. Sadly, the rate has exceeded 50% for years.

Let’s imagine that many of those babies are born malnourished and as a result are born prematurely. Looking at the staggering costs associated with premature births and the negative health consequences for the children themselves, a citizens group decides to do something about it. They get a measure put on the ballot that would amend the state’s constitution to state that basic healthcare for babies is a right and that hospitals must provide free neonatal care and nutrition to all expectant mothers if requested. The ballot passes with a majority of the vote.

One New Orleans hospital doesn’t like the mandate and sues in federal court claiming it’s unconstitutional based on the Takings clause of the US Constitution. A federal judge agrees and throws the legislation out. The governor agrees with the judge and decides not to appeal the ruling. Suddenly, the state where the citizens have decided that they want to put the health of children ahead of the profits of rich corporations is suddenly unable to do so. Now the supporters of the referendum have no choice to appeal the ruling to the US Supreme Court. The Supremes agree to take the case… only to decide that the plaintiffs don’t have standing, saying: “We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to,”… “We decline to do so for the first time here.” Now, this story of course is fiction, but the ruling by the Supreme Court is not. This is the exact language the majority used in their ruling in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Prop 8 case where a federal judge threw out a constitutional amendment to the California constitution stating that marriage is between a man and a woman. While this Louisiana scenario was hyperbole, the reality is, that is the exact situation that could be seen in any state. A majority of citizens of a state can change their constitution to address any issue they deem appropriate, but if the governor claims that it’s unconstitutional vis-à-vis the US Constitution and a federal judge agrees with him, tough luck for the citizens.

Sound crazy? Not really. Remember, the Supreme Court did not judge Hollingsworth on its merits, but rather simply dismissed it based on whether or not the party that appealed had standing. If their goal was to uphold the unconstitutionality of Prop 8, which this decision does by default, they should have had the courage to decide as much and let the American citizens react. If they wanted to preserve state’s rights they should have thrown out the federal court’s decision and let California’s voters handle it at a state level. What they have done with this cowardly ruling is neither.


The court has said in Hollingsworth is that 1 person can sue to challenge the constitutionality of a state action but not a single one of the 7 million California citizens who voted to pass it can sue in support of it since the state chose not to. There seems to be a disconnect there, particularly as one could make the argument that citizens are somewhat the equivalent of the states in terms of their relationship with the federal government. The 10th Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. That suggests some level of equality between the two, and the Supreme Court choosing to not allow citizens to seek the enforcement of lawfully implemented rules while allowing other citizens to sue for their destruction is arbitrary and capricious.

Tthe whole point of popular referendums like Prop 8 is for a population of a state to have some control over their governments. From back room dealing to bureaucratic overreach to election manipulation, state governments can become unwieldy and corrupt and at times very unresponsive to the wishes of their citizens. Prior to Prop 8, 1978’s Prop 13 was probably the most famous ballot measure of modern times. That, like many propositions, was a response to an out of control government addicted to increasing property taxes to fund… everything. Prop 13 became a watershed event in the empowerment of citizens against the corrupt bureaucracy of their state governments. By arbitrarily suggesting that citizens cannot defend the constitutionality of their own laws the Supreme Court has eviscerated one of the most powerful tools citizens have to control their sometimes uncontrollable legislatures, executives and judiciaries.
They have needlessly neutered the citizens of California and every other state with this cowardly and disingenuous ruling.

About Vince

The product of a military family, growing up in Naples, Italy and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and being stationed in Germany for two years while in the Army, Vince spent half of his first quarter century seeing the US from outside of its own borders. That perspective, along with a French wife and two decades as a struggling entrepreneur have only fueled an appreciation for freedom and the fundamental greatness of the gifts our forefathers left us.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Wednesday, July 3rd, 2013 at 1:44 am
| 586 views

24 Responses to With Prop 8 the cowardly Supreme Court eviscerates citizen’s rights

  1. Frank says: 1

    Wrong! The people have a simple remedy. Vote the SOBs in the state government that refused to appeal out of office. If a majority of the voters fail to do so, they deserve exactly what they get.

    ReplyReply
  2. Old Guy says: 2

    I am getting to the point where I feel the Supreme Court is more a hindrance than a help to our country. The Obamacare decision did it for me. When the IRS goes, maybe they can take the Supremes with them.

    ReplyReply
  3. mathman says: 3

    It is time for the websphere to do what the media will not: find out what dirt Holder has on Roberts, Kennedy, Kagan, and Sotomayor.
    These recent rulings are preposterous on their face. The only possible justification is the ruling that “The Constitution is what we say it is” (sorry, I forgot the Justice who said this). The Court systematically ignores Amendment X to the Bill of Rights. The Court systematically denies to the House the sole power to originate revenue bills. The Court has systematically ignored the right to property in its eminent domain decisions.
    Men In Black, indeed. This masterpiece was authored by Mark Levin, and it is sadly all too true.
    We now have either an Oligarchy or a Kleptocracy, I am not sure which.

    ReplyReply
  4. George Wells says: 4

    “Louisiana… is currently the home of the nation’s highest rate of births to unwed mothers, currently at 54% of all births. Sadly, the rate has exceeded 50% for years.”

    Interesting choice of data to make a point against gay marriage, as gay marriage is so often accused of weakening the institution of marriage, while that institution has been in serious decline for a LONG time…

    The author makes a point that a disservice was suffered by the proponents of Prop 8 as a result of the courts decision as if no harm would have been suffered had the court decided differently. That is certainly not the case. Granted the 48% of voters who opposed the proposition don’t count – that’s how referendums work. But regardless of whether or not you approve of gay marriage, allowing Prop 8 to stand would have weakened the 14th amendment of the Constitution by adding to a growing list of exceptions to everyone’s right to due process and equal protection. That would have harmed all 320 million of us, as opposed to the 7 million who are jacked because a few thousand homosexual couples get to find out first-hand how miserable marriage can be. I would suggest that in the balance, we are better served when the courts side with constitutional principle at the expense of petty phobias.

    I once asked Chief Justice Warren Burger why the court hadn’t already dealt with gay rights issues. Burger, a conservative nominated by Richard Nixon, told me that gays (they were called homosexuals back then) would get equal rights “in the fullness of time.” He meant that while they were deserved, the country wasn’t “ready” for gay rights, in the same sense that Ginsburg has famously lamented the Rowe vs. Wade decision, which she contends was correct but premature. Interesting that a conservative SCOTUS chief justice would have that opinion 40 years ago, particularly in light of where we find ourselves today…

    ReplyReply
  5. Greg says: 5

    With Prop 8 the cowardly Supreme Court eviscerates citizen’s rights

    Actually, some people who were being deprived of a fundamental right that others take for granted have just had it extended to them. (Or at least witnessed a significant step in that direction.)

    Those who have long taken that same right for granted haven’t had theirs diminished in the slightest degree.

    So really, what’s the problem?

    ReplyReply
  6. dscott says: 6

    I once asked Chief Justice Warren Burger why the court hadn’t already dealt with gay rights issues. Burger, a conservative nominated by Richard Nixon, told me that gays (they were called homosexuals back then) would get equal rights “in the fullness of time.” He meant that while they were deserved, the country wasn’t “ready” for gay rights, in the same sense that Ginsburg has famously lamented the Rowe vs. Wade decision, which she contends was correct but premature. Interesting that a conservative SCOTUS chief justice would have that opinion 40 years ago, particularly in light of where we find ourselves today…

    The position is actually a conservative principle, if change is desired by the majority, they will organically allow said change and NOT be enforced from an edict of the elites as abortion and gay marriage have . Regardless of what you think of abortion or homosexuality (I disagree with both), if the culture accepts the activity then a minority has no right enforce its views on them. However, neither does the majority have a right to over rule the minority’s right to object to said behavior by calling them bigots or use the Law against them for their beliefs.

    The fact that a few States have properly used the legislative process to legalize gay marriage means they have organically accepted the views of the majority (voters). My question still remains, is the majority of voters actually the majority or a coup of the active minority to show up at the polls at a given moment? Those States that have used judicial and executive fiat like California and Massachusetts are imposed Laws by the elites who have no respect for the majority and thus not organic change.

    My own opinion on the matter is the country will not be well served by gay marriage as it has not been by abortion. Both of these issues are destructive behavior that if left to mature will in time destroy the country, one can only hope that the pendulum will swing back sooner rather than later before a catastrophic failure occurs.

    ReplyReply
  7. john says: 7

    Louisiana is a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment. It also ranks easily first in the murder rate, 50% higher than #2 Missouri. As for Bourbon Street and N.O. jazz they both are just part of that Theme Park.

    ReplyReply
  8. George Wells says: 8

    @dscott:
    Question #1: you said “Regardless of what you think of abortion or homosexuality (I disagree with both)…” Did you mean that you “disapprove” of both? I ask that because you did not specify what it was that you disagreed with, and as there is an endless selection of topics one could choose from, without specificity, your “disagreement” is meaningless.

    Question #2: you said “My question still remains, is the majority of voters actually the majority or a coup of the active minority to show up at the polls at a given moment?” Are you suggesting that voters who choose NOT to vote have any say at all in the matter? They DON’T! Having given up their opportunity to have their opinion counted, citizens who don’t vote are invisible to the decision-making process, and have no one to blame for it but themselves. Opinion polls of likely voters indicated that Prop 8 would fail by as much as 8%, yet it passed with a margin of over 4%. Did the voters lie to the pollsters, or did some of the opponents fail to vote because they assumed from what the polls indicated that their votes weren’t needed? It DOESN’T matter! It doesn’t take a conspiracy to motivate voters, but for whatever reason, the more motivated side usually wins an election.

    Question #3: you said “My own opinion on the matter is the country will not be well served by gay marriage as it has not been by abortion. Both of these issues are destructive behavior that if left to mature will in time destroy the country, one can only hope that the pendulum will swing back sooner rather than later before a catastrophic failure occurs.” Are you aware that over the course of history, cultural acceptance of homosexuality has ranged from enthusiastic support to extermination, while over the same period of time the incidence of homosexuality has remained roughly the same, at around 3%. When homosexuality waxes popular, more homosexuals let themselves be seen, while during periods of persecution, they stay hidden, but their relative numbers do not respond to the moods of society. “Left to mature”? Are you suggesting that more and more heterosexuals will “choose” to be gay? That’s not how it works, and it has never happened, regardless of society’s position on the subject. “The pendulum will swing back”? As it did when Nazi Germany rounded up homosexuals, sewed pink triangles on their prison uniforms and exterminated them along with the Jews? Did that “swing of the pendulum” help save Germany?

    You have been fed countless lies about homosexuality, and you have accepted them as the truth. You have been taught to fear homosexuality, and you learned your lesson well. So it’s really not your fault, and you are forgiven. The true saving grace in all of this is that voters who share your opinions are a dwindling breed. The overwhelming support for gay rights and marriage equality among young voters and the even younger “pre-voters” convincingly predict that there will be no “pendulum” in the gay-rights battle. Most civil-rights issues do not behave like “pendulums.” Once the slaves were freed, did that pendulum swing back? Once women were given the vote, did that pendulum swing back? No, and No, and Not this time either.

    ReplyReply
  9. retire05 says: 9

    @George Wells:

    You have been fed countless lies about homosexuality, and you have accepted them as the truth.

    Lies? Is there any doubt what homosexuality is about? It isn’t something that deals with a person’s outward appearance, or their profession, or even their ethnic culture. It is about sexual activity, pure and simple.

    You have been taught to fear homosexuality, and you learned your lesson well.

    Standard queer pabulum. If anyone disagrees with the actions that make a person a homosexual, they are immediately accused of fearing gays, or being a bigot, or a homophobe. You will never accept, George, that people just may find what makes you gay repugnant. Just as they would find adult incest repugnant.

    So it’s really not your fault, and you are forgiven.

    So you are now in a position to forgive someone you don’t even know for some perceived offense?

    The Prop 8 decision simply shows that anytime the left doesn’t like the will of the people, the very basis for our system of government, they will find some sympathetic judge to overrule that will. Prop 8 was not the beginning. California passed Prop 22 in 2000 to affirm that marriage would remain between one man and one woman. In 2008, the California Supreme Court, in a convoluted ruling, struck down Prop 22. The same year, Californians passed Prop 8 and the insanity from the queer community ensued.

    And the way the queer community won in a lower federal court should be an embarrassment to every person in the nation and the actions of the judge in that case, Vaughn Walker, should be taught as the most egregious example of judicial misconduct in every law school in the nation. You see, Walker ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional, never revealing that he, himself, had been in a long term homosexual relationship and had a vested interest in seeing Prop 8 ruled invalid. It was only after he retired, did he admit to his interest.

    Again, the Ninth Circuit showed judicial misconduct. Judge Stephen Reinhardt worte the ruling that Prop 8 was unconstitutional, never revealing to the court that his own wife, Ramona Pipston, directed the ACLU affiliate that filed briefs in support of the Prop 8 challengers. In both lower court instances, the judges refused to recuse themselves although they had a vested interest in the outcome of the litigation, one personal, the other financial.

    The ruling in DOMA destroys the right of the people to govern themselves through the ballot box. It laid out the premise that the Court, not the people, govern and that if an elected official refuses to perform their required duty to those that elected them, the people have no redress (of grievances). It invalidates the entire “will of the people” concept. The proponents of Prop 8 followed the law in every step on its way to the Supreme Court. Justice Kennedy threw the Constitution in their faces, ripped to shreds.

    ReplyReply
  10. Greg says: 10

    @Greg, #9:

    The ruling in DOMA destroys the right of the people to govern themselves through the ballot box.

    All that it interferes with is the unnatural compulsion some people seem to have to govern the private lives of others.

    Refer to Post #5.

    You apparently approve of the democracy when it gets you the results you want, but reject it when it doesn’t.

    ReplyReply
  11. George Wells says: 11

    @retire05 #9:
    “The ruling in DOMA destroys the right of the people to govern themselves through the ballot box.”

    “The People” have the “right” to “govern themselves” only so long as the measures they enact do not conflict with rights conveyed by the Federal Constitution. The SCOTUS decision did not state, but implied, that regardless of judge Vaughn Walker’s motivation, his finding that Prop 8 violated due process and equal protection was correct.

    At this point, Prop 8 proponents have three choices. They can go back to the California courts armed with an advocate for their side who somehow has “standing” in this case (good luck there…) where they will find themselves opposed for the first time by the compelling rationale expressed in the DOMA decision. Or they can rewrite the proposition to somehow accomplish the same effect without conflicting with constitutional protections (good luck there…) and then hope that the polls are once again wrong (and this time wildly so) and that the California voters will vote exactly as they did in 2008 (good luck there.) Or they can save their money fighting this lost battle and concentrate their efforts in more productive directions.

    “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again” has wisely been amended. It now states that “If at first you don’t succeed, maybe try a different approach, but don’t make a fool of yourself by repeating the same failed steps over and over again.”

    I guess that there is one other option – the one you are exercising: Do nothing and cry about it.

    “You will never accept, George, that people just may find what makes you gay repugnant.”
    WRONG! I entirely accept and am quite comfortable with the fact that you find me repugnant. I hold the same opinion of you – no surprise. We have every right to these opposing opinions. What we do not have is the right to impose our respective opinions on others to effect an inequitable restriction of civil rights, which is what Prop 8 did.
    Cry, cry, cry.

    ReplyReply
  12. Greg says: 12

    Post #10 was actually directed to retire05‘s #9, btw.

    ReplyReply
  13. retire05 says: 13

    @George Wells:

    I entirely accept and am quite comfortable with the fact that you find me repugnant.

    Did I say that? No, once again, being the dishonest person you have proven to be, you twisted my words which were “. You will never accept, George, that people just may find what makes you gay repugnant.”

    What makes you “gay”, George? It is your actions, not the color of your skin, your profession (unless you are a male hooker), your education or your ethnic heritage.

    I hold the same opinion of you – no surprise.

    So you find the actions of those who are heterosexual, the same actions that nature designed and are normal, repugnant? If you find nature repugnant, George, you need mental health care TODAY.

    ReplyReply
  14. George Wells says: 14

    @retire05:
    “Did I say that? No”
    Actually, some time ago you DID say it. You said something to the effect that you didn’t have a “problem” with what I had “said,” you simply had a “problem” with “who I was.” Taken in context with your knowledge that I AM gay, and your often-expressed moral outrage toward homosexuals in general, you DID, in effect, say that you find ME repugnant. Or is my assessment incorrect and your heart is really full of apple blossom-scented, warm-and-fuzzy love for yours truly?

    “So you find the actions of those who are heterosexual, the same actions that nature designed and are normal, repugnant?”
    No, I said nothing of the sort. The comment: “I hold the same opinion of you – no surprise.” was OBVIOUSLY directed toward YOU. As YOU haven’t announced YOUR sexual orientation, my comment was OBVIOUSLY not directed toward heterosexuals. I find YOU repugnant because you spit and gnash constantly, hurling insults at me and everyone else thate you hate so VERY much (“sodomite”, “ queer”, etc.), you never turn the other cheek… never apologize; you never utter a kind word or a hint of hope, no expression of Christian grace or compassion. How could I NOT find you repugnant?

    What “makes me gay”? Really? THAT’S what people find repugnant? I have absolutely NO idea why I am gay. I told you before that by age 5, I knew that I was seriously different, and when the equipment became functional and started to point toward guys (age 10 ½) the full measure of “seriously different” became apparent. What was the cause? No molestation, so that theory’s out. No other family members or acquaintances… no “exposure” to positive gay role models. I didn’t know of, much less knowingly meet, another homosexual until late in high school, and that was just rumors I heard about Paul Lind. So what’s to find “repugnant”? My being gay certainly wasn’t a willful “choice” – I’d have to have been insane (as early as age 5) to have wanted the abuse gays got back then. I have concluded that a possible prenatal hormone imbalance has the slight edge for “the probable cause,” but I certainly wouldn’t bet any money on it. But so maybe you want to find hormones repugnant? Really? Be my guest. I’m baffled by the witch-hunt for a “cause” to find “repugnant.” What is the point of that?

    ReplyReply
  15. retire05 says: 15

    @George Wells:

    Actually, some time ago you DID say it.

    Oh, I see. “Some time ago.” Not today, not in the current discussion, but “some time ago” where you obviously can’t remember, or don’t want to provide, my exact quote.

    You said something to the effect that you didn’t have a “problem” with what I had “said,” you simply had a “problem” with “who I was.”

    Not true, at all. I don’t care if you dress up in a pink bunny suit and think that the aliens are going to transport you to some Nirvana. I dislike you personally. I dislike you because you are dishonest. You twist what people say to change the meaning of what they say.

    , hurling insults at me and everyone else thate you hate so VERY much (“sodomite”, “ queer”, etc.)

    I see. If I disagree with your homosexual life style, then there is no other reason except that I am a “hater?” And how odd that you object to the terminology I use when homosexuals use the very same terminology.

    I told you before that by age 5, I knew that I was seriously different,

    I am calling b/s on that, George. 5 year old children do not equate to being “different”, at least not in a sexual way. But then, you are a rampant liar.

    and when the equipment became functional and started to point toward guys (age 10 ½) the full measure of “seriously different” became apparent.

    Crude, crass and generally unacceptable on your part. I think you get off talking dirty more than you get off on any other action.

    George, you may think you are making some headway here at FA, but all you have done is show what a agenda driven radical you are. Being queer has consumed your life, and I almost feel sorry for you (but not quite yet.)

    ReplyReply
  16. George Wells says: 16

    @retire05:
    I cannot say for sure that you hate anyone or anything. But I do know that you choose to use the language of hate. You commonly use harsh and derogatory terms that are never used in polite conversation, and you call your opponents “liars” at every opportunity. My perspective on life may well be skewed by the fact that I grew up homosexual in a society that found my orientation both revolting and criminal, but I do not lie about my experiences. I tell you and anyone else who cares to read exactly what I have learned, felt, seen and experienced, and I tell it unflavored by any “radical agenda.”

    “5 year old children do not equate to being “different”, at least not in a sexual way.”
    Exactly correct, and consistent with what I said, if you would like to read it again: “by age 5, I knew that I was seriously different…”
    At age 5, the difference I recognized was not “sexual.” My favorite toy was a pink rubber lamb that had a whistle in one foot so that when you squeezed it, it whistled. Other boys had favorite toy cars or trucks or trains. I dreamed of having beautiful long pink and gold hair, and my heart ached for Lassie’s owner Timmy, so that when at age 5, I got a cat (a female), I named her “Timmy.” I would not have appreciated that I was “different” had it not been for the “unusual” reactions of parents and friends to these and other “differences”. In retrospect, there had to have been some gender identity malfunction at work, but as I said before, I haven’t a clue what it was. More to the point, though, is why you would accuse me of B/S-ing you about details of my childhood? I’m being candid and honest. You may not recognize it or care one way or the other, but anyone who DOES care deserves nothing less than the truth.

    When I attempted a bit of a metaphor regarding the consequences of puberty and the realization that ensued, you commented : “Crude, crass and generally unacceptable on your part.”
    How would you prefer – shall I attempt to discuss the consequences of puberty with clinical precision? Really?
    Tit for tat, I suppose.

    ReplyReply
  17. retire05 says: 17

    @George Wells:

    I cannot say for sure that you hate anyone or anything.

    Oh, but you already have. Let me just remind you of your comment in post #14
    ” hurling insults at me and everyone else thate you hate so VERY much”

    That was a definitive statement that you believe I “hate” YOU and everyone else.

    At age 5, the difference I recognized was not “sexual.” My favorite toy was a pink rubber lamb that had a whistle in one foot so that when you squeezed it, it whistled. Other boys had favorite toy cars or trucks or trains. I dreamed of having beautiful long pink and gold hair, and my heart ached for Lassie’s owner Timmy, so that when at age 5, I got a cat (a female), I named her “Timmy.”

    You really expect any intelligent person to believe that psycho-babble bullshit? Really, George? Well then, I guess by your standards, any parent that has a 5 year old little girl who want to wear cowboy boots and jeans, like my daughter did, thinks baseball is the coolest game in the world, like my daughter did, and watches Dora the Explorer and wants to name her new male kitty after Dora, should just go ahead and accept their fate as the parents of a lesbian? Just how far are you willing to stretch credulity to advance your agenda?

    When you have to design behavior in a 5 year old child to fit with your agenda, you are not even reaching the level of pathetic. Pathetic would be a step upward.

    my heart ached for Lassie’s owner Timmy

    Quite the drama queen, aren’t you? I would assume you finally got that pink and gold hair, via a wig. You should be a sight at the Folsom Street Parade or some other display of homosexual radicalism.

    But I do know that you choose to use the language of hate. You commonly use harsh and derogatory terms that are never used in polite conversation, and you call your opponents “liars” at every opportunity.

    I use the same terminology that is used by every homosexual in the nation. The fact that YOU decide they are terms that “that are never used in polite conversation” is absurd. Go to any gay bar and you will hear those terms thrown around like candy from a Mardi Gras float. And no, I don’t call all my opponents “liars” but I do call you that because it fits you like a glove.

    ReplyReply
  18. George Wells says: 18

    @retire05:

    Oh, I DO believe that you hate me, but I have no definitive knowledge of it, thus my statement that I can’t say for sure that you hate me is correct.

    And I really wish that I still had that little lamb, or a picture of it, so that I could send it to you, but my parents didn’t take any photos of it, and when I was about 8 years old, I destroyed the thing trying to get the whistle out of its leg. But I DID have that lamb (I called it my “lambie”) and I loved it. Why would you think a young child loving a sweet toy is psycho-babble?

    And, no, I never got the pink and gold hair. It was just a recurring dream. And I’ve never been to San Francisco or Key West. Never went to gay bars much when I was young, and haven’t been for at least 30 years. My husband and I see no point in going.

    Per your remark about the language spoken in gay bars, surely you aren’t suggesting that the language spoken in such places would be considered “polite conversation”? I WAS referring to “polite conversation,” not gutter talk, which seems to be your specialty, not mine.

    “I use the same terminology that is used by every homosexual in the nation.”
    Not EVERY homosexual. Not me.
    You can’t identify us unless we wear ridiculous “drag” that gets shown on television, so that’s how you characterize us all, and you have adopted a similar stereotype of gay speech habits from God knows where. Gay people don’t all have the same political agenda, much less support the same political party, they don’t all drive the same type of car, wear the same type of clothing, like the same foods, vacation in the same places, like the same television shows, or mimic each other in the myriad of ways you seem to think that they do. In fact, the only thing that gay people all have in common is their same-sex orientation. But some of them don’t even HAVE sex, and the ones that do don’t all do the same things in bed. The sooner you come to understand the diversity of the folks you so enthusiastically disapprove of, the sooner your comments about them will stop being so ridiculous.

    ReplyReply
  19. retire05 says: 19

    @George Wells:

    Oh, I DO believe that you hate me, but I have no definitive knowledge of it, thus my statement that I can’t say for sure that you hate me is correct.

    So you “believe” that I hate you, although I have never said I hated you, and you have no concrete proof that I hate you, but because I disagree with you, in your sick mind there can be no other reason that I have admitted to disliking you other than I hate you? And I am supposed to believe that that is the opinion of a sound mind?

    You want “hate”, George? Here is “hate”

    http://www.komonews.com/news/crime/Video-shows-crowd-attacking-religious-protesters-at-Pridefest-214151861.html

    It seems that just a sign that disagrees with the homosexual community is now cause to get beaten up like Michael Vick beat his dogs. Care to preach to me again about “tolerance”, George? Oh, I know, you’ll say “That’s just one/two guy[s]” but it’s not, George. It is symbolic of the radicalism of the homosexual community as a whole that is increasing with each passing day.

    Why would you think a young child loving a sweet toy is psycho-babble?

    I have come to a conclusion. Either you are willfully twisting what I said (you were not making the point about a toy, but how your “heart ached for Timmy” at the age of 5) or you are simply stupid. Which is it?

    You can’t identify us unless we wear ridiculous “drag” that gets shown on television, so that’s how you characterize us all, and you have adopted a similar stereotype of gay speech habits from God knows where.

    Well, finally. Finally you admit that there is no way to tell a person is gay “unless we wear ridiculous “drag” that gets shown on television” which blows the “gay discrimination is the same as discrimination against blacks” meme. If one cannot tell another person is gay, then how the hell can that person discriminate against a gay person on an individual basis?

    The sooner you come to understand the diversity of the folks you so enthusiastically disapprove of, the sooner your comments about them will stop being so ridiculous.

    See, George, it is you who is intolerant. And a whiner. And you can’t seem to understand the difference between not liking people and not liking the actions of those who are sexual deviants. (Look up the word “deviant” before you go off the rails as you generally do.

    ReplyReply
  20. George Wells says: 20

    @retire05:

    Here we are on a page designated for the discussion of The Supreme Court’s action regarding California’s Prop 8, and what are we discussing?
    I have never knowingly or willingly lied to you or anyone else on this site, and yet you continually cry “liar!” and then accuse ME of whining! Is it any wonder that we are the only two fools left bickering on this thread, having bored everyone else to tears?

    Your circular reasoning on the topic of identifying gays for the purpose of discrimination isn’t worth the time it took you to write it. There is plenty of anti-gay discrimination – some violent – that is well-documented by reputable law enforcement agencies, and sometimes there is also corresponding violence directed at some of the opponents of gay rights. Both are wrong and should be condemned.

    “See, George, it is you who is intolerant.”
    Last time I looked, I was entirely supportive of your constitutional right to say the most nasty things that you can think of about anyone you chose, and I can’t imagine a way that I or anyone else could temper the hate that you feel (as surely you must, or why else would you articulate it so often?). If it’s not “hate,” then why does it sound like “hate?” Just a question… And there’s that “deviant” word again. So polite, so predictable, so boring. Get back on topic, won’t you?

    ReplyReply
  21. retire05 says: 21

    @George Wells:

    Here we are on a page designated for the discussion of The Supreme Court’s action regarding California’s Prop 8, and what are we discussing?

    Issues surrounding tyranny by the minority.

    I have never knowingly or willingly lied to you or anyone else on this site, and yet you continually cry “liar!”

    When you take what someone else says, and changes the meaning of their words to mean something else, what would you suggest I call that? Willful prevarications? Dishonest fabrications? “Lying” is so much more simple, isn’t it?

    Your circular reasoning on the topic of identifying gays for the purpose of discrimination isn’t worth the time it took you to write it.

    Considering you are the Chubby Checkers of the response world, that is funny, George.

    the hate that you feel

    Wait, didn’t you, in post #16 say “I cannot say for sure that you hate anyone or anything.” and now you are ascertaining that I “hate?” Seems you need to make up your mind.

    If it’s not “hate,” then why does it sound like “hate?”

    Because that is what you want my words to sound like. I can find hate in your words, if I so choose. You are like Al Sharpton that can find “racism” in even the most mundane statements, only you apply the term “hate” instead of racist.

    And there’s that “deviant” word again.

    So you have found another word that is not to be used in

    “polite conversation,”

    ?
    Let’s see what the internet dictionary says about the word “deviant”

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deviant

    Can you deny that your sexual preferences “deviate” from the norm?

    Last time I looked, I was entirely supportive of your constitutional right to say the most nasty things that you can think of about anyone you chose,

    Now, that’s hateful. Why are you so hateful, George?

    ReplyReply
  22. George Wells says: 22

    @retire05:
    “tyranny by the minority”? That’s a hoot! As you didn’t specify WHICH minority you were referring to, I’ll have to guess…

    Did you mean the 3% gay minority? What magical leverage have we, I wonder… where, at the ballot box? Are we so conspiratorially united in our motivation to gain equal rights that we exert a disproportional influence upon elections by exercising our voting rights to the detriment of those heterosexuals that are too lazy to vote? Is THAT how it works?

    Or did you mean that the “tyranny” was coming from a “minority” on the Supreme Court that happened in this case to have been in the “majority,” as it is was the court’s majority that rendered the “cowardly” decision discussed here.

    It should be noted that the “cowardly decision” was written by Bush-appointed conservative John Roberts with uber-conservative, Reagan-appointed Antonin Scalia’s agreement, AND joined by liberals Kagan, Breyer and Ginsberg. Since the courts “swing” vote – Kennedy – wanted to find Prop 8 unconstitutional, had the liberal wing united behind him, they COULD have reached a sweeping decision granting same-sex marriage rights in all 50 states. But they didn’t do that, for some very wise reasons. The liberal wing split, and the majority threw the case back to California because the proponents of Prop 8 didn’t have “standing.” Had they reasoned otherwise on the standing issue, Prop 8 would have been thrown out on the merits of the argument against it. The “right” would still not have gotten the result it wanted, and its outrage over the court “legislating from the bench” would have been far worst that its disappointment with the “cowardly” alternative. The “right” got with this decision the best it could have achieved – a one-state loss instead of a whole-country loss – and should be grateful.

    Or is your “tyranny by the minority” comment a complaint that the SCOTUS doesn’t have the right to find legislation and/or voter initiatives unconstitutional? If the SCOTUS doesn’t have that job, who does? And if nobody does, then the body of laws that we end up with will have no dependence ON the Constitution, making the latter document irrelevant. It really has to be this way.

    And lastly, on the boring topic of who is the more “hateful”:
    Perhaps you have not put together that the only time I am critical of you is when you refer to me using terms like “queer,” “sodomite,” “liar,” “deviate,” “whiner,” “pathetic,” and accuse me of having a “sick mind,” being a “drama queen,” speaking “psycho-babble bullshit” etc. etc. etc. These are not legitimate points of argument, they are personal attacks. They don’t add a blessed thing to whatever points you are trying to argue. Rather, they demean your position on the issues and dilute the value of our conversation to the point of worthlessness. In the context of the totality of your use of such derogatory terms, my characterization of your style as being “nasty” or “hateful” is accurate.

    ReplyReply
  23. George Wells says: 23

    @To anyone bored enough to have followed this tiresome thread:

    Notice that fundamental to the argument against marriage equality is the component of “hate.” Notice that when the component of “hate” is identified and effectively neutralized, little else remains. (Thus the sound of crickets that you hear now…)

    IN the quest for marriage equality and for gay rights in general, the sensitivities of religious opponents should be respected, and care should be taken not to infringe upon the many rights those persons have. Similarly, those opposing gay rights should not attempt to hold others to their own standards. In our country that is becoming increasingly diverse, our future depends upon our ability to accommodate everyone’s contribution to, as the French put it: Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. We’re all in this together, let’s make it work.

    ReplyReply
  24. Pingback: Obama’s Chickens Coming Home To Roost On EgyptIOWADAWG'S BLAWG | IOWADAWG'S BLAWG

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

Switch to our mobile site