More of that "activist judges" hypocrisy on gay marriage, this time from Jay at StopTheACLU:
My first concern on the issue is limiting the courts from usurping the will of the people. This legislation will do that.
But why is that your "first concern" only on this issue? I don't recall seeing any complaints from you about the Bush administration running to the courts to get them to "usurp the will of the people" in overturning Oregon's assisted suicide law (passed by popular referendum, not once but twice) or California's medical marijuana law (also passed by popular referendum). In fact, you were disappointed when those unelected judges on the Supreme Court refused to overturn the "will of the people" of Oregon in regard to assisted suicide. You sent out a blogburst condeming the ACLU for supporting such policies and you rooted for the courts to put a stop to it. But is it only "the will of the people" when they agree with you?
- Log in to post comments
I hate to defend Jay, but he did kind of sort of express concern for the will of the Oregon voters:
I really love reading his rants, and I do it often. I can assure you that this was the only time that he's ever said anything half-sane.
He may claim to be "divided", but that didn't stop him from claiming that the Supreme Court's refusal to overturn the "will of the people" in Oregon constituted "Another victory for the pro-death folks at the ACLU." He said the outcome was "quite disappointing", but took comfort from the fact that Roberts had joined Scalia and Thomas in dissent. So despite his rhetoric about being concerned about unelected judges "usurping the will of the people", here is is condemning the court for not doing so. Obviously, "the will of the people" has nothing to do with it.
This constitutional amendment does not protect the "will of the people" since it does limit the power of states and voters to "define marriage".
When it limits civil liberty, the religious right defers to the will of the people. When it limits civil liberty, the religious right defers to the courts. Isn't that easy?
Of course, they can honestly accuse me of the opposite. As a civil libertarian, I generally defend the expansion of individual liberty. The difference is that I'm honest about my position, and that there is plenty of history and logical basis for saying that the Bill of Rights and 14th amendment and other parts of the Constitution should be read liberally with regard to the protections they define for individual liberty. The religious right notion that such protections should be read as narrowly as possible, even as inkblots, is about as contrary to American ideals as I can imagine.
Considering the constant equating of DOMA and FMA by the amendment pushers, it almost makes you think their religious texts tell them to deceive voters.
Jay and the other sundowning hominids who write on that site make a lot of spurious claims, but one of the strangest is calling the ACLU "pro-death" and insisting that its members want to "destroy America." Even were the ACLU made up of a truly nefarious bunch of people, chances are that these people would still be looking out for their own interests, however selfishly. I mean, ACLU attorneys do live and work in the United States and they wouldn't be able to do this if they were dead or the nation were literally in ruins. I've never heard of an organized movement with leaders who say, "Hey! Let's create deadly gas leaks and set huge fires right near our fucking homes! That'll show us!"
Then again, I may be giving these bloggers too much credit in terms of their ability or willingness to look at all or even two angles of any issue.
Does anybody know what the "will of the people" is on this issue? Is there really a large majority against gay marriage?
The will of the people is divided at the national level. Approximately half favor the Amendment, while half oppose.
If I remember correctly, the picture becomes still more difficult when asking about what recognitions gay relationships actually deserve: About 30% favor same-sex marriage; 30% favor civil unions; and 40% say no legal recognition at all. The third number has eroded considerably in recent years, in favor of the first and especially the second.
Here's where things get really interesting: Because the MPA would forbid both civil unions and marriages, I am forced to conclude that at least 10% of the electorate does not understand what is at stake at all. (And I'm fairly convinced that this is the lower bound.) Will of the people, indeed.
I have been reading all these screeds against gay marriage and none of them make any sense to me at all. Why should people get to vote on whether or not to permit people civil rights? Did people get to vote on the Emancipation Proclamation? If people get to vote on it, I say only gay people should be allowed to, seeing as it is no one else's business.
I cannot understand why gay marriage does any harm to heterosexual marriage. I just don't understand what people are opposed to. If they aren't gay then fine. Gay people already exist in the US and will continue to exist and to have relationships with each other whether allowed to marry or not.
Just none of these arguments make sense at all. They have no logic to them.