The Courts And Prop. 8 (The Dog Trainer's Diatribe Against Traditional Marriage Supporters Alert)

Los Angeles Times ^ | 11/20/2008 | Los Angeles Times Masthead Editorial

[goldstategop]

Although we too will welcome the day that Proposition 8 is consigned to history and the right to same-sex marriage is restored to Californians, we are sorry to see that the court agreed to take the cases directly, rather than letting this issue percolate up through the lower courts. We see no reason for the haste, despite the intensity of emotion roused by the measure's defeat.In fact, that very heatedness is a reason for the court to move slowly, allowing it to rule under cooler circumstances.

Similarly, painful though it is to see Proposition 8 take effect, we agree with the court's decision to allow it to stand as law until the court rules. This is a hateful measure, passed after a campaign of misleading scare tactics, but it did pass. Suspending further same-sex marriages while the litigation proceeds will delay the exercise of this fundamental right, but we are a democratic nation and one bound by the rule of law; until voters reconsider or the courts decide otherwise, there is no option but to stop issuing marriage licenses. ....

The California Supreme Court could rule either way on whether Proposition 8 amounts to a constitutional revision, but the issue demands its attention. The court already has found that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right; now it has the opportunity to fulfill its constitutional obligations to guard against the tyranny of the majority and to ensure that elections do not become vehicles of repression.

[goldstategop]

According to the Dog Trainer's screed this morning, supporters of Proposition 8 are hateful bigots who helped it pass with "misleading scare tactics." And they hope, along with the Governor, that the Court puts them in their place so elections do not result in an outcome the Left disfavors. To the DT, that would be a "vehicle of repression." So there is no legitimacy subscribed to the view that marriage is between a man and a woman. There you have the liberal view of tolerance expressed in the masthead editorial of California's largest daily newspaper. It doesn't extend to any one who believes in the sanctity of traditional marriage. They are on the receiving end of a diatribe from the Dog Trainer's editors who think as little of them as they are enamored with "the love that dare not speak its name."

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[Eagles6]

Is secession by a state up to that state to propose and follow through? Just sayin’

[rj45mis]

goldstate, what are u doing up at this late hour :)

Marriage between perverts is a fundamental right? The Prop 8 measure is guided by ignorance and hate? God help us when this gets overturned!

[rbbeachkid]

Like with the Rose Bird Supreme Court decisions, I hope that we get rid of justices if they overturn Prop 8

[goldstategop]

I borrowed it from Patterico, who incidentally, supports same sex marriage. I don't and the thing we have in common is we both loathe the Times. Its good enough for picking after your dog but it just plain gets the facts wrong and allows its liberal bias to color its reporting AND editorial opinion.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[Fred]

These whiners are free to move to CT or MA. They can get ‘married’ the same day they arrive.

[goldstategop]

True. And they can live there happily. No one is forcing them to stay put in California with all those intolerant homophobes! ;-)

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[Philo1962]

Notice also that in the Proposition 8 referendum, about 70% of blacks voted “yes” There are cracks and fault lines in the Democratic coalition, which resembles the jalopy driven by Jed Clampett in “The Beverly Hillbillies.” It’s held together with baling wire and chewing gum, but it runs. One good, hard smack in the right spot will make it fall apart.

I know just the right spot, and how hard to smack it.

[Alia]

From article: we are sorry to see that the court agreed to take the cases directly, rather than letting this issue percolate up through the lower courts.

LOL! Oh Drat, were it to go to the lower courts and percolate up, why the LA Times would have huge brawls to cover to sell more news, etc. The No Side would be able to get more funds to help the no side get more buses and huger signs, and lots more media time. Oh drats, Miss Tutsmucker! Where's Lex Luthor when ya need him...

Subtitle for this article's headline:

In Search of an Otis.

[fwdude]

The CA supremes caused the problem with their failure to stay their decision in May, now let them rectify it by correctly listening to the people of California and letting the amendment, which they approved in advance, stand.

[madprof98]

. . . guard against the tyranny of the majority and to ensure that elections do not become vehicles of repression.

After they win this one, the lunatics in your state will claim it is tyrannical and repressive to keep them from wedding their livestock.

[reagandemocrat]

“Tyranny of the majority”...eh.

Might have to use that against Obama.

[jimt]

After they win this one, the lunatics in your state will claim it is tyrannical and repressive to keep them from wedding their livestock.

It's just as logical as same sex "marriage". Maybe more so.

[Publius6961]

The court already has found that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right; now it has the opportunity to fulfill its constitutional obligations to guard against the tyranny of the majority and to ensure that elections do not become vehicles of repression.

If a courts had the power to define a "fundamental right," Constitutions would never be necessary.

Merely the fact that it can change from time to time, destroys the mindlessness of calling perversions "fundamental" rights.

If tyranny must exist, most of us would rather it be by the majority, NOT by the minority, whether it be the 3% of gays and their supporters or by a state supreme court.

[lentulusgracchus]

This is as extreme an expression of left-wing, ideological arrogance as you can find anywhere.

They just don't grow ideological bigots any bigger than they do at the L.A. Times.

This is a serious challenge to the People's sovereignty and self-respect as well.

[lentulusgracchus]

Is secession by a state up to that state to propose and follow through? Just sayin’

Yes, it is.

The L.A. Times's editorialist's problem, though, is that he wants to secede from the majority of people in his State who don't see this issue the way he does.

[lentulusgracchus]

[Article] In fact, that very heatedness is a reason for the court to move slowly, allowing it to rule under cooler circumstances.

IOW, the editorialist wants the California supreme court to kill the measure by dead of night, with a poisoned razor blade and no witnesses.

[fishhound]

It may become very important for people in each state to find out what laws exist to prevent the disruption of their church services. And even folks that don’t like church might like to know these types of laws also. Maybe a state by state listing might be good to have on FR. Hard to believe that this law exists in MA, but there it be.

The General Laws of Massachusetts

Mass.gov

PART IV. CRIMES, PUNISHMENTS AND PROCEEDINGSIN CRIMINAL CASES

TITLE I. CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS

CHAPTER 272. CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY, MORALITY, DECENCY AND GOOD ORDER

Chapter 272: Section 38. Disturbance of assembly for worship

Section 38. Whoever wilfully interrupts or disturbs an assembly of people met for worship of God shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars.

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/272-38.htm

[gidget7]

WOW that’s amazing, not that it exists, but that it still exists. Legislature must not be aware of it, or they might have overturned it. Good to know!