Juliette at Baldilock has gotten around to posting her reaction to the issue of acknowledging the right of gay folks to get married. In a way it reminds me of my reaction when the Massachusetts Supreme Court opened it all up:
Beyond the Yuck Factor
How will government-sanctioned homosexual marriage cause the downfall of American society as we know it? Who really knows if it will? Hey, it might not. Are you surprised reading that output from the keyboard of a professed Christian? I can’t see why you would be. From a Christian perspective, the mainstreaming of homosexuality into society(ies) isn’t exactly a big surprise.
[followed by biblical quotes about bad people]
The thing is, either one believes this or one does not. Christians believe this is a harbinger of things to come, so why worry about homosexuals marrying? You all knew this would happen if you read the owner's manual. Non-Christians blow it off as superstition or blasphemy, so why worry about it? You don't believe in this stuff anyway.
Juliette's problem is with the way it was started. She feels it should be put to a popular vote.
I can see the outcome of a popular vote on giving Black people the vote in the 60's.
I can see the outcome of a popular vote on interracial marriage…a direct parallel.
I can see the outcome of a popular vote on interning Japanese citizens WW II.
Catch my drift?
Posted by P6 at February 14, 2004 10:22 PM
Trackback URL: http://www.niggerati.net/mt/mt-tb.cgi/411
Comments
Not just popular vote (initiative process); legislative action is acceptable. This worked (federally) for re-ensuring that black people had the vote in the sixties. (And I don't accept that it's a direct parallel but give me time to flesh that one out; I needed time for this one.)
Posted by Juliette at February 14, 2004 11:27 PMNo, not really, because that reasoning works both ways. Suppose voters want black people to have the vote, but the courts say no; suppose voters veto Japanese internment camps, but the courts insist on them. You'd rather leave things up to the courts because the courts have always validated your opinion. But the courts, like the voters, aren't perfect, and one should be weary when they attempt to overstep their bounds.
Posted by average joe at February 15, 2004 01:47 AMI am here this morning to say that Average Joe is absolutely right when he says the courts have always validated my opinion, and that's why I support it. What other reason would I have to support it? The court was always my favorite branch of government.
The reasoning works both ways but the reality doesn't. It really should give people pause that
1- The majority has initially rejected extending full membership in the nation to some group or other.
2- The majority has ALWAYS come around to accepting the court's decisions in such areas as the moral one.
Okay B, I stand corrected; it's anything but the courts here. :-)
Let me goad you a bit and suggest the reason you need time to get back to me on the direct parallel statement is because you see exactly what I'm talking about but that doesn't matter—you have an opinion to defend.
Posted by P6 at February 15, 2004 07:13 AMThe court's always been your favorite, eh? Heh. Fine. Just don't come crying when they overturn Roe v. Wade.
Just don't come crying when they overturn Roe v. Wade.
They won't. The vast majority of Americans want that procedure available and will not stand in the way of any individual having it, whether they themselves would choose to have it done.
You'd rather leave things up to the courts because the courts have always validated your opinion
Now, shall we look at the court decisions that have gone my way that you reject? Which ones are those, exactly?
Posted by P6 at February 16, 2004 08:00 AM