Utterly Meaningless

Wish I belonged to one of those religions so I could quit! 🙂

“I look forward to the day the the CA Supreme Court rules the amendment null and void.”

I just want to make sure you know what you’re asking for. You want the courts to be the final arbiter of what a constitution ‘should say’, as opposed to the people?

Keep in mind – you might some day disagree with the courts, and wish to modify some constitution or other…

Is that your final answer?

Yes, for me.
This union was never intended as a raw populist plebiscite. It is a representative democratic republic. If our learned and duly elected representatives together cannot by any means provided, amend my constitutions — and they effectively cannot, at the state or national level — then I don’t see why it should be easier for rich leaders of the Mormon church or eacko professors like Ward Churchill or the casino lobby or the teachers’ union or the Pope and his woman-exploiting armies across the globe, to to orchestrate dozens of bizarre and ill-advised, UNconstitutionally compatible changes to the very constitutional protections we’ve all been assured we can rely on without fear of such cynical power-grabbing mischief.

Wacko professors, that should be. The w is next to the e. Although “eacko” fits, hmmm. They certainly make me “eek” —

Rob,

I see the point you are trying to make. However, I couldn’t help but think that at one point “the people” decided that Blacks would go to separate schools, ride in the back of the bus, use separate water fountains and restrooms, couldn’t sit at lunch counters or stay in hotels, etc… At one point it was illegal (the peoples’ will?) for a Black person to marry a White person, many neighborhoods had “whites only” covenants…one could go on and on with examples of Laws, presumably the will of the people through their elected officials, that were blatantly unconstitutional, not to mention downright morally wrong. Of course, Jim Crow was itself legitimzed by a SCOTUS decision, Plessy v Ferguson…

To this point of view, I would ask what you think.

Is that your final answer?

Absolutely, as others have pointed out. But there’s a bit more. As I’ve seen it explained, the CA Supreme Court recognizes two types of constitutional amendments. The ones that just tinker with the constitution need only a 50+ 1 margin to pass. Propositions that would have a dramatic effect on a recognized minority group need jump a much higher hurdle. Personally, I don’t see how they can let it stand at all. The Court has already held that not issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples violates CA’s equal protection clause. Would you strip that out of the US or your state Constitution based on a simple majority vote?

Here’s the brief for the legal challenge that would declare Prop 8 “not a valid constitutional amendment.”

How ’bout we propose a simple Constitutional amendment that reads something like this:

Self-professed Mormons (aka “Latter Day Saints”) are not to be considered citizens of the US and have none of the rights afforded citizens under the US or any state constitution.

Are you willing to bet your right to vote that you can convince 50%+1 of your fellow citizens to vote “No”? How ’bout if a powerful organization plans to run an expensive “Yes” campaign in which they will distort and lie about what the proposition will really do? Still want to place your future in the hands of the electorate?

First they came for the gays…

Not to mention homeschooling, she said dryly.

That supermajority may be out there waiting to void us already!

FL voters tended to pass any amendments on the ballot, usually in big batches as if they came cheaper by the dozen! So the pass percentage for all amendments went up from bare majority to 60% which was supposed to help.

Nov 5 the marriage-messing amendment passed with 62% here — hard to explain because FL is home to many seniors who re-partner late in life but don’t necessarily marry, due to social security benefits and inheritance issues for their kids, etc. Who’s more likely than these folks, to wind up in the hospital far from other family members and need that respected status for their partner? This “marriage protection” amendment took some protection away from them as collateral damage, but the seniors didn’t hear THAT in church, nope, nope. And they sure do vote.

“Propositions that would have a dramatic effect on a recognized minority group need jump a much higher hurdle.”

Sweet – so, rather than just creating a right that has never been in existence before, and then vandalizing houses of worship when society refuses to unconditionally accept you, how about the folks in CA follow that higher hurdle process thing of yours in order to get this new right recognized in the first place?

“Are you willing to bet your right to vote that you can convince 50%+1 of your fellow citizens to vote “No”?”

Heh – you lived in Utah all that time, and you never heard us whining about all the past persecutions mormons have endured? Be advised – we once had the Governor of Missouri issue an “Extermination Order” against Mormons:

“…the Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the State if necessary for the public peace…”

We petitioned President Van Buren for redress of grievences. His reply: “Your cause is just, but I can do nothing for you. If I take up for you, I shall lose the vote of Missouri.”

We were on the receiving end of mob rule in New York, in Missouri, in Ohio, in Illinois. We finally high-tailed it across the plains to the middle of friggin’ nowhere (Utah territory) and came within in inch of going to war with the federal government. Our leaders were in hiding, the feds had seized all our temples and buildings. We ended up vying for statehood instead. It’s a fascinating bit of history – and it’s the reason women ended up with the right to vote, because votes on polygamy were too close to call, and each side figured the female vote would swing the issue in their favor.

Here’s your answer Daryl: We’ve always supported the just rule of law. If enough people were ticked off at us to try such an amendment, we would shout for joy that they were bothering with an actual legal process, rather than getting liquored up and coming at us with torches like they used to.

It would be a grand experiment – those who trust in the inherent goodness of man and the rule of law, vs. those who figure there’s no such thing, only powerful rich thought leaders vying over the minds of the sheep.

From where I’m standing, they call the slippery slope argument a logical fallacy for a reason. If reality was really put together in the “first they came for the gays” format, mormons would have either been wiped off the face of the earth by federal troops back in the 1850’s, or we would have kicked y’alls butts back to Washington and established the Kingdom of Deseret.

Sweet – so, rather than just creating a right that has never been in existence before, and then vandalizing houses of worship when society refuses to unconditionally accept you, how about the folks in CA follow that higher hurdle process thing of yours in order to get this new right recognized in the first place?

They had it. Prop 8 wiped it out. Glad you’re now supporting gay marriage.

I should also mention “First they came for the gays” is a bunch of crap to begin with. Nobody is coming for anybody (unless you read the more militant picket signs and gay blogs – in which case they’re coming for me).

Yes on 8 was never about making behaviors or lifestyles illegal, or “taking away” those who are different. Labeling it as such seems to me a cheap trick.

We’ve always supported the just rule of law. If enough people were ticked off at us to try such an amendment, we would shout for joy that they were bothering with an actual legal process, rather than getting liquored up and coming at us with torches like they used to.

And this is just total bullshit.

I find it hard to believe that I’d fight harder to protect Mormons’ right to vote than you would.

But, you know your co-religionists better than I…

Yes on 8 was never about making behaviors or lifestyles illegal, or “taking away” those who are different. Labeling it as such seems to me a cheap trick.

No, it was about stripping a fundamental human right from a minority group. I’ve read somewhere something about fundamental human rights. It goes something like “among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Your church decided that your beliefs include stripping gays in CA of the right to marry. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.

CA supreme court looked at their state constitution and found that it basically declared that all people are equal. That being the case gay people were allowed a right that so many people take for granted, the right to marry the person that they love.

So what happens next? A bunch of people decide that their faith based view trumps civil liberty and that they are within their rights to remove that right. Mormons and people of other religions in CA as well as many more from outside CA took it upon themselves to lie about me and other gay people and what we really want and convinced a tiny majority of people to remove the right of me and gay people like me to marry the person we love. That is wrong, and it is evil.

Also, what does Mormon history have to do with anything? Is this more of the religious people trying to play the victim card? Is that really what Jesus would have done? And if we are going with Mormon history then why pretend that all Mormons have always been innocent? Why not discuss the deaths your religion is responsible for? Why not discuss the teen suicides that happen because a gay kid can’t find any other way out? Or should we talk about the gay people that are harassed and physically hurt merely for being gay?

No one that I know of is actively trying to take away the right of people to worship as they want. None of the gay people I know or know of want to change the way churches go about dealing with the religious aspects of marriage. What we do ask is that religious people stick to the religious and take their faith based views out of the civil arena.

We’ll leave your church alone when you leave our love alone.

Sam,

Given their history of polygamy I’m not sure the Mormon Church would oppose your marrying your boyfriend. 🙂

Depends — is he black? Since we’re bringing up the history of how god and bigotry have been twisted and all. . .

Can anyone here guess why mormons are being targeted as the main power behind Yeson8?

Is it because nobody dares to go protest in black areas, where three-fourths of blacks voted for it?

Or latino areas, with their hefty majorities?

Or they understand that it does no good to protest the Catholics?

We were one church, one organization out of thousands. Yeah, we donated a lot of money, but so did a lot of other organizations.

We’re the target because we’re weird. If the gay agenda can put a dislikable face on their opposition, they’re hoping people won’t wish to be numbered among them.

“Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.”

lifesi...1.html

You approve?

“We’ll leave your church alone when you leave our love alone.”

If you were in it for your rights to love, you wouldn’t care about what it was called. Have all the love you want – leave the term ‘marriage’ alone.

Care to try again?

You approve?

Absolutely not.

Can anyone here guess why mormons are being targeted as the main power behind Yeson8?

Easy. Your church made it an issue, brought in workers from out of state, lied repeatedly, and spent millions of dollars to strip gays of the right to marry. The Mormons were the main driver behind passage. Read ’em and reap.

Is it because nobody dares to go protest in black areas, where three-fourths of blacks voted for it?

Did the NAACP do all the things the Mormons did?

Or they understand that it does no good to protest the Catholics?

Read the article you linked. Do you not know who the Knights of Columbus are?

We’re the target because we’re weird.

You’re the target because your church took an immoral stance. Stop whining and get active in your church. Lead them into the 20th century, at least. Or be prepared to fade into irrelevancy as the country moves past hating teh gay.

You’re on the losing side of history.

If you were in it for your rights to love, you wouldn’t care about what it was called. Have all the love you want – leave the term ‘marriage’ alone.

Separate but equal, I guess.

Rob,
Since when do religious bigots get to define a legal term?

Or be prepared to fade into irrelevancy as the country moves past hating teh gay.

***

Actually, I’m OK with that.

Nance

Daryl, did you see what Huckabee said on the View yesterday, about how the gay struggle doesn’t count as a real civil rights movement, like the 60s? Here’s the video and a hard-hitting response —

JJ,

I’m going to bump this up top. Great catch! Thanks.