Prop H8TE

*phew*

If it's OK with everyone else, I'd like to get away from debating the philosophy of religion for a while - at least until the comment to my last post start rolling in.  But I've been writing for the last week or so on the topic, and even I'M getting tired of hearing what I have to say about it. LOL.  In all seriousness, I do look forward to reading your comments, but for now I'm going to take up some current events.

Like HOW ABOUT that Prop H8TE ruling out in California, huh?

The courts are finally starting to get it RIGHT!  Hopefully that will continue and Justice Kennedy won't balls it all up when it inevitably makes it way to the SCOTUS.

But, needless to say, I am very glad to see it ruled such.  And to me this issue is a no-brainer.  (And go figure that those who support banning gay marriage and Prop H8TE have no brains.)  Between Rush Limbaugh wetting his pants about how we're living in Tyranny, and how we're weakening the constitution and these idiots who think the judge should have recused himself or that he's out of the mainstream and the bed-wetter on NPR this morning crying about "his vote doesn't count" and how "it's like a dictatorship..." 

My God, even if I didn't care about the ruling, you've got love ANYTHING that pisses of the Right Wingers and Religious Conservatives that much. LOL

OK, one at a time...

"We're living in Tyranny" or "It's like a dictatorship."

Give me a freaking break.  This is not "like a dictatorship."  THIS is like a CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY.  See... in a dictatorship, you don't GET to challenge the law.  And the rights of people get taken away without recourse.  So... please explain to me how guaranteeing people equal protection under the law and protecting their LIBERTY is tantamount to "tyranny."  It's absurd.  All this judge did was to tell one group of people that the don;t have the right to DICTATE the behavior of another group.  PERIOD.

And last time I checked, "Freedom to take away someone else's freedom" was not it the Constitution!

"Out of the mainstream"

Posters T.Boone Slickens and Highlighter seemed to think that because 7 Million people voted for it, that makes Prop H8TE, the MAINSTREAM school of thought. 

What they fail to grasp is that if a law is unconstitutional, kit doesn't matter HOW MUCH popular support it has!  Segregation was pretty popular in the states that had it.  (Remember - prop h8te was just a California thing, just a STATE thing!)  And the courts saw the insanity and stuck those laws down - that's why we HAVE THEM.  That's was "limited government" is all about! PROTECTING PEOPLE'S RIGHTS!  And that will ALWAYS be in the "mainstream" of Constitutional thought, because that's what the Constitution DOES! 

It's an inherently Liberal document today, and was a FLAMINGLY liberal document when it was written!

What's more, I don't use the segregation issue lightly.  I choose it because the arguments being presented in opposition to gay marriage are almost word for word the same arguments used a generation ago in support of anti-miscengeny laws!  Replace racial bigotry with sexualist bigotry and you're saying the SAME. DAMN. THING!

"The judge (who's gay) should have recused himself."

MMFA does a pretty good job, shooting this one down, but to me it's even more simple.  If we are to assume that a gay judge can't be objective about gay issues, we must also assume that a CHRISTIAN judge cannot be objective on church-state issues!  Like, say...  for example...

GAY MARRIAGE!

The law got shot down because you don't take away people's liberty and deny them equal protection under the law without a compelling state interest.  And the supporters of Prop h8te, and all opponents of gay marriage for that matter, have never come CLOSE to demonstrating one.  Not. Even. Close.

EVER.

[some nonsense about the] "Traditional Definition of Marriage"

This might be the single dumbest line of reasoning of all.  Look... marriage CHANGES.  The TRADITIONS of marriage CHANGE.  If they didn't?  If we stuck to the REAL "traditional definition of marriage?"  Well... that's a father marrying of his daughter to a young man of his choosing, in exchange for a dowry.  So it seems to me that the "traditional definition of marriage" is closer to what we call "PIMPING" today.

And if you're worried about the institution of marriage being threatened, outlaw DIVORCE.  (Something that was also illegal at some point!  See? THINGS CHANGE!)

[some nonsense about] Our "Christian Values"

If your argument against gay marriage has the word "bible" ANYWHERE in it, SHUT. THE. FUCK. UP.

The first amendment states very clearly that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.  That's word for word, CRYSTAL CLEAR.  So ANY argument made on the basis of religion is 100% irrelevant.  When our elected officials take their oath of office, they put their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution - not the other way around!

I enthusiastically applaud this ruling, and I see it as the beginning of the end of ACTUAL Religious Tyranny on this issue. And I say, "Good riddance."

There will no doubt be more to come.  Gay Marriage is INEVITABLE.  There may be set backs, but - just as with Marijuana - the genie is out of the bottle.  Why conservatives insist on constantly trying to pull the juggernaught backwards I'll never understand.