I believe that if a popular vote were held TODAY (2008) on racial prejudice and segragation, the polls would likely show a neck and neck race!!!

California – Vote “NO” on Prop. 8!
Arizona – Vote “NO” on Prop. 102! AGAIN!
Florida – Vote “NO” on Amendment 2!

“The commercial supporting Prop. 8 complains about activist judges thwarting the will of the people. Activist judges appear to be those who disagree with the idea that only some people get equality before the law. Brown vs. Board of Education and Loving vs. Virginia were both landmark cases dealing with racial prejudice and decided by activist judges. The country is better off for them. If it were left to a popular vote back in the Fifties and Sixties, racial prejudice and segregation would still be the norm. It took court decisions and political leadership to move this country toward doing the right thing.

Defeating Prop. 8 is not only about marriage equality, it is also about doing the right thing and making our country a better place for all citizens. Prejudice and discrimination, whether because of race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other irrelevant factor, are always wrong. They diminish all of us, our laws, and our country.

Please vote no on Prop. 8

To find that a law or an initiative is contrary to provision of a Constitution is not de facto disenfranchisement. There is no indication whatsoever that any court found restrictive marriage laws to be unconstitutional because those so voting were “opponents” of “the gay left”.

This seems to me to be another example of results-based objection.

Some people believe that those decisions with which they disagree are “judicial activism” or “unconstitutional acts” or “disenfranchising” or “judicial fiat”. But they do not question the authority of those courts who find in their favor on the exact same question. I find such thinking to be driven more from emotion than from principle.

So! Whom exactly are you alluding to as being “disenfranchised”?

And disenfranchised how exaclty?

Nevermind these questions.

I now know what you are alluding to.

You want people to be able to vote on what civil rights certain groups should be afforded and what civil rights certain groups should not be afforded.

Which gives me pause to wonder if you truly understand the principles which underly the bill of rights, why they’re called the bill of rights, and if you truly comprehend the founding principles of a democracy which has been said repeatedly is to prevent the tyranny of a majority over that of a minority.

The gay left knows perfectly well that the constitutions in this country say nothing about the topic of gay marriage.

Neither do constitutions specifically address any marriage, as I’ve mentioned before (somewhere) either straight or gay.

As for any further response, Timothy’s post above says it best.

None of this has anything to do with disenfranchising heterosexuals as a group any more than it does with disenfranchising homosexuals as a group.

You know, this pattern of yours of making a statement and then denying you made it is really becoming tiresome.

Verbatim from one of your above posts:

the gay left wants courts to “reinterpret” constituions so as to disenfranchise their opponents.

So! Whom exactly are you alluding to as being “disenfranchised”?

And disenfranchised how exaclty?

One will not find the words “same-sex marriage” in constitutions just as one will not find “lunch counter” or “country club” or “school board meeting”.

Contitutions deal in principles. And because they look at concepts and apply them to specific situations they remain valuable and timely and relevant.

I’m sorry, Stefano. I misread your comment. I thought you were saying the bit from Carpenter was my third point! Please excuse me.

My point about using courts to disenfranchise isn’t nonsense. Not at all.

There are many possible views on the subject of gay couples and legal recognition. A court can only properly take a side if the law already does so. The gay left knows perfectly well that the constitutions in this country say nothing about the topic of gay marriage. But they still want courts to take their side, which means they want all other positions ruled unconstitutional. To call this unfair is an understatement.

None of this has anything to do with disenfranchising heterosexuals as a group any more than it does with disenfranchising homosexuals as a group.

You must stop looking at this from the perpective of gay victimhood.

If anything, my argument has been and still is for the need for both transformational activism and political activism.

You speak of the importance of gainin acceptance, to quote Barney Frank, from the post Jim Burroway just posted: “But when some talk about teaching the value of tolerance, when some talk about condemning violence based on someone’s basic characteristics, we are told we cannot do that. We have been told that we cannot let a school teach acceptance of the gay lifestyle. Think about that: What does non-acceptance mean? If acceptance is interpreted to mean approval, then I don’t care about it. There are bigots in this world whose approval holds no charms for me. But when non-acceptance means not accepting someone’s right to live, we have a serious problem.
Now, while I would have said “we cannot let a school teach tolerance” I am referencing this mainly as a continuation of the discussion of social transformation. How do you achieve normalization when you can’t even talk about tolerance without having to bring law suits upon public schools?

And this

In other words, the gay left wants courts to “reinterpret” constituions so as to disenfranchise their opponents.

Non-sense.

The extension of rights to gays and lesbians in no way disenfranchises the heterosexual population. They are not being excluded, their rights are not being removed, in fact, their lives do not change in any way either in their day-to-day lives or with regard to their legal rights and responsibilities.

With regard to same-sex marriage this is particularly so.

With regard to your original comment

marriage is about treating “applying law equally to gay people and straight people” just as we apply laws the same way with black people and white people is without legal merit. Marriage is about sexuality. So sex and sexual orientation are quite germaine to marriage laws.

And my attempts to understand the specific point you were trying to make, in the light of your latest lashing out, I’m making the choice to not even pursue that conversation further in an attempt to comprehend you.

Mainly because I still fail to see what makes sexual oriention “germaine”. If one removes any procreational discussion of sex with regard to marriages, and/or removes the biblical proscriptions one’s sexual orientation is completely irrelevant. Not germaine.

It is a sexual (non-platonic) relationship.

Agreed. But this as it relates to sexual orientation has nothing whatsoever to do with the state acknowledgement of same-sex or heterosexual marriages. It is only relevant as mentioned when procreational or biblical considerations are imposed upon the institution.

So nice to hear from you again at long last.

It’s clear you don’t think I count as a regular reader. But you honestly don’t think you’re a member of the gay left? Then you don’t know yourself very well.

When I wrote, “he views any attempt to distinguish traditional marriage from a homosexual union as wrong … he goes even further and insists that any such attempt must violate every constitution in the land,” I was accurate, wasn’t I?

You say you don’t think I’m a bad man. Well, Tim, actions speak louder than words. And the way you’ve treated me since I’ve been commenting here speaks volumes.

“I do think you are reactionary, often ill informed, amusingly arrogant, contrarian, argumentative, and not infrequently foolish. “

That’s funny. If you replace the term “reactionary” with “gay leftist” that sentence accurately sums up my opinion of you. Go figure.

“I think that you do not have a firm set of principles from which you base your idealogy.”

This from a man who told me to go have a beer because I dared question him about Congressional authority to pass anti-discrimination laws on private entities.

“I think that you are too often inclined to approach issues from the perspective of what group you are in agreement with or which group you oppose rather than think about positions on your own.”

Based on what, Kincaid old boy? Your reading of tea leaves?

“I think that you are more than a little hostile to gays individually and collectively and suspect that there is more than a little internalized conflict going on.”

All because I disagree with you. [Personal insult removed due to violation of Comments Policy]

“I’ll not be entertaining any future personal jabs at this site, towards me or anyone else.”

[Edited due to violation of Comments Policy]