Allahpundit: I Would Have Voted No on Proposition 8
Allah drops this revelation in a rather off-hand manner, in a post about Nancy Pelosi’s ridiculous whine that voters weren’t told about the California Supreme Court’s decision:
Speaking as someone who would have voted no on Prop 8: Who cares?
I agree with Allahpundit about Pelosi’s whine, by the way. The California Supreme Court’s illegitimate decision ought to be utterly irrelevant to this question. Indeed, as someone who did vote no on Prop. 8, the only redeeming thing about its passage is that it squarely extends the electorate’s middle finger at the state Supreme Court.
The message: lefties can’t always win by doing an end-run around the electorate by way of the courts. If the issue comes up again, it will have to be without the interference of judges who write decisions with one hand, so they can pat themselves on the back with the other hand.
And that is a good thing.
The “exit question” is obvious: will Andrew Sullivan praise Allahpundit for his uncommon courage?
And yes, I’m kidding about the “courage.” I feel reasonably certain that Allah would agree with me about faux pronouncements of “courage” in these situations.
Patterico (c93a89) — 11/8/2008 @ 10:09 pmThe lefty campaign to use the courts to force this issue down the throats of an unwilling electorate has resulted in two states which permit gay marriage, and 30 which now have provisions in their state constitutions forbidding gay marriage.
The lefties have managed to create a disparate coalition against them consisting of people who oppose gay marriage and people who oppose judicial activism.
Steven Den Beste (99cfa1) — 11/8/2008 @ 10:23 pmAnother good thing was the middle finger at Jerry Brown for his eleventh-hour rewording of the initiative. That said, the point has been made, and now it is time to work together on a law that a majority of voters will approve.
fat tony (f86b83) — 11/8/2008 @ 10:23 pmBy the way, I favor gay marriage, but if I were still living in California I would have voted for Prop 8 because I hate judicial activism.
Steven Den Beste (99cfa1) — 11/8/2008 @ 10:24 pmTony, we have already worked together on a law that a majority of voters would approve; it was called Proposition 8, and it was approved Tuesday.
Official Internet Data Office (c1dfe4) — 11/8/2008 @ 11:04 pmPlease and thank you, would some knowledgeable soul answer this: when the ACLU files its lawsuit to invalidate Prop 8, what is the presumption for the granting of a stay in the implementation of Prop 8, pending the result of the lawsuit?
Is the standard that the ACLU must demonstrate a probability of winning? Or, is the standard a mere possibility of success? Are there any guidelines that a judge must follow when deciding upon injunctive relief?
From my non-JD perspective, it seems a slam dunk that the ACLU will win a stay. Why am I wrong?
Ed (04ae8e) — 11/8/2008 @ 11:14 pmOk, so Allahpundit is as wrong on Prop 8 as Patterico is–that’s news?
Allahpundit leans left on social issues. His stance on marriage rights for gays is no surprise.
Oh, Patterico, I take it you’re not proud of how many of your Anti Prop 8 friends have reacted to coming out on the short end of the stick.
clark smith (d8da01) — 11/8/2008 @ 11:16 pmOIDO, I think that in the long run this will be changed. But only after the gay-rights groups finally accept, and embrace, the fact that they cannot prevail in this except by convincing the majority of voters that they’re right. Then, eventually, another constitutional amendment will pass that nullifies this one.
But it won’t be soon, because the gay-rights groups are currently consumed with arrogance and contempt towards the majority of voters.
Steven Den Beste (99cfa1) — 11/8/2008 @ 11:27 pmEd–
As I understand it, there are three arguments against Prop 8 that the ACLU might use:
1. The liberal ratchet: once a right is granted it can never be repealed. Mid-60’s precedent in a somewhat different situation (right was granted by law, not court).
2. The initiative was a “revision” (bad) not an “amendment”. Usually the dfference is complexity of the change, but they are arguing that the “immensity” of the change is enough to call it a “revision.”
3. The Federal 14th Amendment.
I’d guess that the state court that read the gay marriage right into the state constitution can find it just as easily in the federal one, SO I’d guess they’ll go with #3. Given that, the stay might be a slam dunk.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 11/8/2008 @ 11:30 pmThe gay rights groups orchestrated the MA ruling, knowing that the MA Constitution was protected against change by the plebes. When the backlash happened in every other state instead (as they persisted in the same demented strategy), they got angry and blamed almost everyone but themselves.
Now, I’m not sure that this was entirely unintentional — there are always those who build ghetto walls from the inside, seeking to rule in Hell.
But SDB is correct, this will change someday. Hopefully that someday will also include courts that know their limits.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 11/8/2008 @ 11:47 pmDoes such a small percentage of society deserve so much publicity and justify all the commotion?
Of course, one could say that a fraction of the population (only 2.04% in the SF Bay Area, only 6.9% in the city of San Francisco itself!), shouldn’t make the majority uneasy or disapproving.
Then again, why should we disrupt most of recorded history by redefining marriage downward and, more importantly, further a kind of neurotic sexualizing of culture—in which public schools, should the example of Massachusetts prevail, naturally will start informing students that, yes, our government recognizes two guys getting hitched, two women getting hitched. And so books in the library like “The Prince Marries a Prince” no longer seem so peculiar and propagandistic.
Mark (411533) — 11/9/2008 @ 12:01 am
An atheist opposed Prop 8?
Knock me over with a feather.
Daryl Herbert (4ecd4c) — 11/9/2008 @ 1:40 amI know I voted for it because it was the best way to extend the middle finger to the California Supreme Court. I am sick and tired of judicial activism. Routinely overruling the expressed will of a majority of the people tramples on our rights.
Curtis (e21caf) — 11/9/2008 @ 2:47 amThe “civil rights” model that the judicial/gay lobby is wedded to implies that people committed to the old understanding of what a marriage is will be treated the same ways as anti-Black racists are: with systematic discrimination and demonization, backed up by government-enforced education of their children to see their parents’ values as unacceptable. The attitudes that gay lobbyists are displaying, and that activists judges more obliquely show through their high-handedness shows that these implications are not bare logical possibilities but certainties in practical politics.
This raises the stakes of the fight high.
That might seem irrational if you think the story will end “and so the gay lobby did not prevail”.
But, typically, gay activists seem committed to the idea that their victory in the long run is inevitable. On that assumption, though short term failures like the passage of Proposition 8 may be frustrating, they do not call the logic of the “civil rights” strategy into doubt. Upping the ante on a bet you are sure to win, perhaps after a little delay, is smart.
The idea that gays are bound to win this is sane. After all, despite all obstacles, with the courts onside Blacks won totally. The abortion fight also seems to be resolving in favor of the activist courts, regardless of decades of conservative toil to overcome Roe. The ability to get whatever you want for free, just by having courts – at zero cost to you – define it as a civil right and read it into any relevant constitution is such a strong advantage that nobody can blamed for thinking that in the long run, as long as the courts are inclined to give then whatever they want, they are bound to win.
David Blue (6bdb33) — 11/9/2008 @ 4:25 amSempai-sama, may I remind you? so did the hardline segregationists hate judicial activism.
Perhaps instead of patting yourselves on the back for a “finger from the electorate” for the judges, you should read PJ.
Oh, and watch this, to understand how you have lost a generation of youth, and why you will keep on losing.
wheelers_cat (98fa0c) — 11/9/2008 @ 5:26 amA tribe without reps cannot survive.
You see……you are on the wrong side. Like in civil rights, like in Viet Nam. We see you and we judge you.
wheelers_cat (98fa0c) — 11/9/2008 @ 5:38 amYou are found wanting.
Ruffini says the youth demographic gave Obama 73 electoral votes.
How do you get those votes back?
The lefties have managed to create a disparate coalition against them consisting of people who oppose gay marriage and people who oppose judicial activism.
I see nothing disparate in that coalition.
Opposition to judicial activism runs very deep within the more traditional voting blocks. The preening arrogance and petulance on display only raised further doubts about the sincerity of the ‘rights’ argument. It was seen as a childish ploy rather than a serious argument. Unsaid in all of the discussions about the black vote breakdown is any concern for how black people might respond upon seeing sexual orientation equated with skin color.
Unfortunately for the gay marriage lobby this cicil rights canard all but ensured that any opposition be given Constitutional imprimature.
It could have stayed where it belonged, in the legislature, but not once the courts took such a leading role.
ThomasD (1659da) — 11/9/2008 @ 5:49 amA desire to slap down Judicial Activism was the underlying, if not driving force in the Prop-8 camp, and the need to demonstrate to those courts that they still have to answer to the public.
Another Drew (c881b0) — 11/9/2008 @ 6:07 amIf the George Court refuses to climb down from its’ high-horse, it very well could find itself joining the Bird Court in judicial infamy (and unemployment).
I didn’t realize he was allowed to keep them for good. Where does he put them? Maybe in the lockbox Al Gore was going to use for the Social Security trust fund?
voiceofreason2 (a2141a) — 11/9/2008 @ 6:07 amEven if you’re pro-gay marriage, you should have voted “Yes” on Prop 8. Prop 8 was about overturning an illegal and unconsitutional supreme court decision.
It makes me sick that anti-gay marriage people had to present this ballot proposal. Do people have to do this everytime some living constiutionalist sees some fake, made up positive right in the constitution?
Roy Mustang (2f688e) — 11/9/2008 @ 6:18 amProp 8 was a battle.
wheelers_cat (98fa0c) — 11/9/2008 @ 6:20 amWhat about the War?
The top idea at Ruffini’s rebuildtheparty site is learn how to use the interwebs from Ron Paul.
Grand New Party is brilliantly relevent for the working class.
Not so much for the youth demographic.
So yes, I see Obama keeping those votes, and building on them.
How do you propose to stop him?
Now that’s pretty simple.
We just let President-elect Obama be himself.
EW1(SG) (7b8592) — 11/9/2008 @ 6:22 amBut that is fine with us.
wheelers_cat (98fa0c) — 11/9/2008 @ 6:29 amYou told us that we never voted anyways, and that we would all become conservatives when we got jobs and families.
Obama talked to us.
He recruited us.
And we delivered.
“The message: lefties can’t always win by doing an end-run around the electorate by way of the courts.”
Kevin (5ac156) — 11/9/2008 @ 7:10 amBah. Aren’t you a lawyer? You must know that the courts are going to slap Californians in the face and overturn their votes, right? Jeez. It’s what left coast judges do.
Also, I don’t think it’s right that you outed Allahpundit, Patterico. His private life is private, until he decides to expose himself.
Not classy at all.
[I’d sooner conclude that you’re a homosexual, Kevin, than I would conclude the same about Allahpundit. — P]
Kevin (5ac156) — 11/9/2008 @ 7:12 amAnd when you do, you’ll dump him like the abusive lover you imagine him to be.
EW1(SG) (7b8592) — 11/9/2008 @ 7:13 amMaybe I missed it, but I haven’t seen a compelling argument on why polygamy and other versions of “non-typical” relationships will not be championed on the same merits. Doesn’t the ACLU also represent the Man-Boy Love Association (or whatever it’s called?)
Nor have I seen any argument (let alone compelling) why parents who do not think homosexual relationships are equivalent to heterosexual marriage should not be concerned that their children will suffer the likes of the school teacher berating the student in the other thread. After all, not only do we think what the teacher did was deplorable, but it also violated the letter of the law by declaring certain political views unassailable, which is untrue (no matter how PC those opinions are). When homosexual marriage is legally made the equivalent of heterosexual marriage, it will be the official law of the land that Junior is disobeying when he says that gay marriage is not equal to heterosexual marriage, no matter how respectful and void of animus. Then the teacher will be in the right in how she/he approaches the topic, only the issue of how strident the communication is will be of issue.
Religious clubs have won the right to use school facilities just as any other student led club. Will there be a new test that if such a club disapproves of gay marriage they will not be allowed to practice because freedom from discrimination trumps religious freedom? If the law, scientifically and/or philosophically right or wrong, sticks to the analogy that homosexuality is a biologically determined characteristic just as skin color, then to allow a religious group to meet that disapproves of homosexual behavior is like allowing a religious group to meet that believes another race is inferior. I doubt that any Christian school group has had that view. Whether there are groups of the Nation of Islam or of Rev. Wright’s church meeting in schools I don’t know, but it seems to me that the chance of vocal opposition to them would be much less.
I appreciate Kevin Murphy at #9, I’ve been wondering how a Constitutional Amendment can be legally challenged. Am I right in thinking a state amendment is more “tentative” than a federal one.
On whether gay-marriage will “eventually be accepted”, that’s another whole issue. First, to argue that society will come to accept something doesn’t mean it is morally justifiable or in effect “good” for the society. Second, to voice that argument is not just an opinion, but an act that furthers the argument. Third, perhaps you are right, just as abortion has “come to be accepted”, partial birth abortion is becoming accepted, infanticide is entering the phase of argument for it’s acceptance, and we’ll be cloning humans to be used as “spare parts”. After all, they aren’t “real persons” subject to legal protection while in the womb or even outside of the womb, if not wanted and removed from the womb purposefully before natural birth.
At that time you will need to come to the catacombs to find some remnant of sanity.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/9/2008 @ 7:15 amBut that is fine with us.
Heh-heh-heh.
Stay tuned.
You yung uns have no clue what’s waiting for you.
You told us that we never voted anyways
Never? Who said the young NEVER vote?
and that we would all become conservatives when we got jobs and families.
Not all. Some people simply never learn.
Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (f4c545) — 11/9/2008 @ 7:15 amWhat Paul said. But can’t we join together and revile Patterico for outing Allahpundit as a gay individual? Both halves of the conservative party (the fiscal conservatives AND the religious conservatives) should denounce it.
[As I said, he’s not. But I’m starting to wonder about you, Kevin. — P]
Kevin (5ac156) — 11/9/2008 @ 7:38 amI just have one thing to say.
wheelers_cat (98fa0c) — 11/9/2008 @ 8:08 am365 to 173.
Indeed, Wheeler’s cat. The electoral vote is almost as wide as Richard Nixon’s.
That’s foreshadowing. Also, Patterico should be condemned for outing Allapundit as a gay person.
Kevin (5ac156) — 11/9/2008 @ 8:13 am“On whether gay-marriage will “eventually be accepted”, that’s another whole issue.”
I am very confident that if the people of California were offered a constitutional amendment that proposed the concept of “civil union” for gays/lesbians rather than extending “marriage” rights, it would pass.
There is a religious tradition that marriage is between a man and woman. I see no reason to force religious people who strongly believe in this tradition to accept a change in it.
The “civil union” concept would grant gays/lesbians exactly the same rights as marriage, but it would avoid the ending the religious tradition of marriage that many people support..
Herrina (298ede) — 11/9/2008 @ 8:28 amHow about we call it ‘a gay people thing’ instead of ‘marriage’? Give it a chance. “Bob and Tom are a gay people thinged”. It could later be shortened to ‘thinged’. Everyone wins!
Also, it’s wrong of Patterico to have outed Allahpundit.
[I’m taking votes. Who wants the lying Kevin banned? — P]
Kevin (5ac156) — 11/9/2008 @ 8:45 amMD in PHilly, I’ve been waiting for that too to no avail. Dennis Prager asked the same yesterday. A friend of mine answered my question, “Well, because it’s illegal!”
Sigh.
Patricia (ee5c9d) — 11/9/2008 @ 8:47 amThere is no right to marriage. It is licensed by the State. You do not have a right to a drivers license nor do you have a right to a marriage license. The requirements for each are set by the State. In the case of drivers, age is the requirement and well as certain health issues. Marriage has always been about the expectation of offspring. I will admit there is evidence, judging by the posts here, that asshole babies do exist.
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III (3175de) — 11/9/2008 @ 8:58 amI’m with Patricia! Perhaps we could call poligamist marriages ‘people who like to have perverted sex with each others’, and it could be shortened to ‘perved’.
That way, we’d have normal ‘marriages’, gay people who are ‘thinged’ together, and polygamists who are ‘perved’ for all eternity. Again, everyone wins!
Except I guess Allahpundit, who Patterico disclosed as a closeted homosexual. But everyone else wins!
[It gets funnier every time you say this, Kevin. — P]
Kevin (5ac156) — 11/9/2008 @ 9:04 amStill no apology for outing Allahpundit, Patterico?
[I apologize to the readers here for subjecting them to your moronic comments. — P]
Kevin (5ac156) — 11/9/2008 @ 9:06 am#16
“If you are not a liberal before you are 30, you’ve got no heart; if you’re not a conservative after you are 30 you’ve got no head.” Usually attributed to Churchill.
Rather than extending my middle finger to CJ George and his colleagues, I have taken their collective thumb out of my eye by voting Yes on 8.
I join Patricia and MD in Philly in asking on what basis polygamy and incestuous marriage can be banned if same sex marriage is lawful.
Stu707 (7fb2e7) — 11/9/2008 @ 9:09 amThe Fourteenth Amendment is not violated by Proposition 8. In states where “same-sex marriage” is not recognized, straight couples and gay couples have equal protection under the law. To get married, the rules are that you have to be 1) not currently married; 2) of legal age to marry; and 3) marry a member of the opposite sex. These rules apply to everybody, equally.
Official Internet Data Office (c1dfe4) — 11/9/2008 @ 9:13 amThe imaginary mythical youth vote. I am still searching for unicorns.
JD (831256) — 11/9/2008 @ 9:26 amNobody “outed” Allahpundit, so cool it. And I am not with you, Kevin. I voted no on 8. If it solves all negative feelings against gays, everybody wins. If it moves the ball forward on the complete disintegration of marriage and social order, everybody wins–at least we will have real results to argue over and not conjecture.
I think the same about Obama. Socialism? Bring it! And people can see how they like it. Maybe that will finally spur the development of a real fiscal conservative party.
Patricia (ee5c9d) — 11/9/2008 @ 10:13 amThe “exit question” is obvious: will Andrew Sullivan praise Allahpundit for his uncommon courage?
The fact that Sully considers speaking up in support of an issue like this as uncommon courage, further convinces me of his disconnect from reality. Uncommon courage involves risk and sacrifice. Or at least if used to.
Uncommon courage is risking one’s life to hide Jews from the Nazis, or flying food supplies and medicine into a war zone in order to aid those left to die.
Uncommon courage would be standing up for this issue in Iran knowing full well what the cost for such courage might be. By identifying this in America as uncommon courage, Sullivan undermines the freedom here to be vocally against or for anything in the public square and facing very little if any repercussions. It belittles hard fought freedoms here that simply don’t exist elsewhere. And its very self-serving of him.
Dana (79a78b) — 11/9/2008 @ 10:35 amKevin, one more comment like that and I’ll ban you. It’s perfectly obvious that you’re trying to be annoying. Why would I want a commenter like that?
Patterico (cc3b34) — 11/9/2008 @ 10:43 amI voted yes on 8 for a few reasons.
ML (14488c) — 11/9/2008 @ 10:57 amHomosexual cohabitation is not the same as a traditional marriage.
I feared churches would be unable to deny preforming gay marriages on the basis of discrimination.
I would vote for a civil union type of thing, but somehow it would have to allow churches to legally discriminate, and I don’t see how that could be allowed.
The “exit question” is obvious: will Andrew Sullivan praise Allahpundit for his uncommon courage?
lol, i guess when Allahpundit has the nads to stand up and say Palin is a demagogue.
hahahaha
wheelers_cat (98fa0c) — 11/9/2008 @ 11:09 amI too voted no, mostly because it is hard to spend much energy defending the “sanctity” of civil marriage in a day and age when someone like Britney Spears can go to Las Vegas, decide on a whim to marry some dude, then start divorce/annulment proceedings within 24 hours. Heterosexuals have cheapened the concept of marriage long before gays started pushing to be involved.
I would like to see civil “marriages” extended to gays, but at the same time I would want an explicit amendment to the California Constitution promising that religious organizations reserve the right to deny marriage based upon their beliefs. If the Unitarian Church wants to marry gays, fine by me, but those religious denominations that want to keep the traditional definition of marriage ought to be allowed to do so without the threat of state interference.
JVW (f93297) — 11/9/2008 @ 11:11 amOh, I mean when Allahpundit has the nads to ADMIT that Palin is a demagogue.
wheelers_cat (98fa0c) — 11/9/2008 @ 11:12 amI am sure he already knows it.
😉
That doesn’t work I don’t think. Palin should have the opportunity I think to define herself apart from her role as McCain’s VP person. I bet she doesn’t even use him as a reference for her next gig. Cause he’s such an embarrassment to be associated with.
happyfeet (5836ae) — 11/9/2008 @ 11:19 amOh, I think the majority of California voters are perfectly aware of our Supremes’ decision on the matter when it was before them as a state law. That decision is undoubtedly a large part of why the state constitutional amendment passed. And I really think the Yes on 8 campaign should also send Gavin Newsom a check for one day union scale, or at least a nice goodie basket, for recording a commercial for them.
All that said, Nancy Pelosi is just about the last person on earth, her colleagues in the leadership possibly excepted, who should be maligning anybody’s political intelligence.
Rich Fader (405bab) — 11/9/2008 @ 11:40 amThanks Patricia and Stu707,
Dear host sir, and your esteemed colleagues-
In spite of the flippant tone, we do respect you (as in ya’ll) which is why we come here.
I implore you, please respond as to why claims for equal treatment of other “non-standard” relationships will not have a standing to change the definition of marriage again, and again? (See posts# 27, 34, and 38).
I am not just trying to BS, I would like your perspective. If you “just don’t think it will happen” or if you feel that strongly about gay marriage being approved and are willing to let the consequences be what they may, fine.
[FWIW, I think I’ve been consistent in my posts over time. I do not accept the premise that homosexual relationships are the biological, moral, or sociological equivalent of heterosexual marriage. That said, I oppose any disrespect of individuals based on sexual orientation, and scores of gay HIV infected patients I’ve taken care of over the years would be able to confirm the respect and concern I have shown in treating them.]
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/9/2008 @ 11:50 amIf I had a vote, Pat, Kevin would be 86’d
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/9/2008 @ 12:00 pmFrom Kevin — 11/9/2008 @ 8:45 am:
I do.
DRJ (cb68f2) — 11/9/2008 @ 12:11 pmI am against it! Also, I think we should condemn Patterico for outing Allahpundit.
Kevin (5ac156) — 11/9/2008 @ 12:20 pmLooks like Kevin sealed his fate. In a more sensible world you wouldn’t ban him, but everyone here would ignore him. Since that can’t happen, do what you have to do.
JVW (f93297) — 11/9/2008 @ 12:24 pmKevin doesn’t add value I don’t think. He’s sort of like Vista.
happyfeet (5836ae) — 11/9/2008 @ 12:24 pmDang, I didn’t see the ‘one more comment like that and I’ll ban you’ note from patterico until after I posted my ‘one more comment’.
No hard feelings if you decide to ban me. It IS funny though. Patterico outing Allahpundit. Heh.
Kevin (5ac156) — 11/9/2008 @ 12:25 pmI wouldn’t ban Kevin the ‘Tard right off the bat (recall how long it took to ban the ‘Tard of Thunder), but would send his comments into moderation until he apologizes for his moronic allegation and/or explains WTF gave him the idea in the first place.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 11/9/2008 @ 12:29 pmPatterico – Kevin’s been a complete dickhead on each thread since he arrived here. I would toss him.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 11/9/2008 @ 12:33 pmIt is a drooling idiot, but no worse than Mark, tmj, sniffles, alphie, lovie …
JD (831256) — 11/9/2008 @ 12:46 pmAgain, unfair, daleyrocks. I’ve only been the head of a penis HALF of the time since I arrived here in 2006. You are being completely disingenuous.
Kevin (5ac156) — 11/9/2008 @ 12:46 pmAnd it prolly buggers goats.
JD (831256) — 11/9/2008 @ 12:51 pmJD – You didn’t need the “prolly” part.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 11/9/2008 @ 12:54 pmsince I arrived here in 2006?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 11/9/2008 @ 12:58 pmSeriously though, if this is a problem, ban me, or just send me an email and I’ll stop commenting. I thought it was hilarious to continuously claim that Patterico outed Allahpundit even though he didn’t (It’s still a well-kept secret). Clearly, most people didn’t think it was nearly as funny as I did.
I’ll comment no more on this (I’m lying, I’ll comment 8 to 10 more times on this) but uh, dang that part in the parenthesis really took the wind out of this comments’ wings, huh?
Kevin (5ac156) — 11/9/2008 @ 1:02 pm“…it prolly buggers goats.”
What, now you people are against sex with goats!?! Even THAT’s off limits? Now you ask too much.
Hey, what is the deal with calling a person ‘it’? Is that something you normally do?
Kevin (5ac156) — 11/9/2008 @ 1:07 pmWhy, have you already proposed?
Mossberg500 (9fd170) — 11/9/2008 @ 1:17 pmI’d gladly reconsider banning Kevin if he will truthfully explain his problem. In my view, the post points out that Allahpundit would have voted “No” on Prop 8 but Kevin seems to think the only way this could occur is if Allahpundit is gay. Color me unimpressed with this logic. Thousands and possibly millions of people apparently agree with voting “No” and I don’t think they are all gay.
Kevin reminds me of Obama as he relentlessly said/implied that anyone who disagrees with him is a racist, except Kevin substitutes outing someone for racism. I hope that’s wrong but Kevin’s failure to get off his designated talking points and explain himself reinforces my belief.
DRJ (cb68f2) — 11/9/2008 @ 1:23 pmawww, no feets.
Palin needs to go back to Alaska and lick her wounds.
Poor sad eighties chick with her big hair and mall bangs.
She named her firstborn “Track Van Palin” in Van Halen’s honor, and then the band wouldn’t let her use their music…and Heart wouldn’t let her use their music….and Bon Jovi wouldn’t let her use their music…..and Survivor wouldn’t let her use their music….
Wow, thass gotta leave a mark….or multiple markage I guess….
I plan to name my first born Sonni–works for either sex 😉
wheelers_cat (98fa0c) — 11/9/2008 @ 1:37 pm….I would be so sad if I was runnin for VP and Sonny Moore said I couldn’t use his music.
Yep, that really added to the discussion. And it is fine, if you want to continue to self-identify as a troll.
Because that is all I am reading.
Eric Blair (a723e0) — 11/9/2008 @ 1:46 pmJe m’amuse, eric, cher.
When Palin was announced for VP, I said she would split the GOP right along the IQfaultline.
wheelers_cat (98fa0c) — 11/9/2008 @ 1:50 pmAnd she did.
I’m just waiting for y’all to admit it.
😉
Patterico wrote, about another Troll du Jour:
I applaud that sentiment. Why indeed?
And I think that folks who only seem to post to be annoying ought to be tossed. But it is Patterico’s blog, not mine.
Eric Blair (a723e0) — 11/9/2008 @ 1:51 pmKevin is in moderation.
Whether he thought it was funny or not, he kept doing it after he acknowledged seeing the warning.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 11/9/2008 @ 1:57 pmbtw, this is a big problem for the GOP….huge even.
wheelers_cat (98fa0c) — 11/9/2008 @ 1:59 pmyou don’t have any cool music.
Tim McGraw’s best song is When the Stars Turn Blue, and you can hardly use that.
You’re just harder on Republicans than you are on Democrat people I think though, nishi. Baracky and his woman aren’t deep thinkers. Cant won’t they’ll come to find I think. But I like the Mora. Glow Worm I’m working on. I need better speakers.
happyfeet (5836ae) — 11/9/2008 @ 2:00 pmYou do demonstrate a tiresome and predictable elitism that I sincerely doubt matches your own professional achievements.
For decades, I have listened to or read armchair experts (and since I am scientist, I would add that scientists are among the worst in this sad arena) carry on about how “stupid” a particular candidate or politician is…and that snide judgmentalism resonated, naturally, with the political self-identification of the snotty expert.
I would take it all much more seriously if the armchair expert had…well…ever actually run anything but her or his mouth. Like a business, with real employees. Or been, gosh, I don’t know, a mayor. Or maybe a governor. Heck, perhaps even a senator.
Disagree with a politician, sure. But this stupid versus smart nonsense says little about the politician, and much about the critic.
But generally speaking, faux-intellectuals just sit back, never having done anything practical in their entire cloistered lives, and smugly make bad jokes or what they consider to be clever repartee. Wit is not the same thing as humor, after all.
Of course, those same experts sequel like the metaphorical and hypocritical pigs they are when politicians spout off about science. I mean, imagine! A person passing judgement about another person’s expertise! What kind of person would do that, considering how little they know about the other person’s area of expertise??
It’s like making fun of governors!
I had to listen for eight long years to self-impressed intellectuals tell me how “dumb” and “senile” Ronald Reagan was…and yet his Presidency did things that President-Elect Obama greatly admires.
You might be right about Palin. You might be wrong. You don’t know. And in the meantime, rather than sit back and tear things down, why don’t you spend some time trying to build things up?
Oh yes: that’s outside your expertise.
Troll.
Eric Blair (a723e0) — 11/9/2008 @ 2:03 pmand also..Allahpundit linked that Palin wouldn’t read her press notices because she was depressed about the musicians dissing her and not lettin her her use their tunes for her rallies. Meanies.
wheelers_cat (98fa0c) — 11/9/2008 @ 2:05 pmNow THAT is what I look for in a CinC, someone that goes on a crying jag when they can’t play Eye of the Tiger.
Allahpundit is sort of a little bitch I’ve heard, for real. Ok psycho told me.
[Aaaaaand another person goes in moderation! Who wants to make it a hat trick for this thread? — P]
happyfeet (5836ae) — 11/9/2008 @ 2:11 pmNishi is just a little fearful is all. She has no accomplishments to her credit and the ugliness she always puts on display in comments is something which she sees reflected in the mirror every morning of her miserable existence. Wouldn’t you act out if your spirit were as obviously deformed as is hers?
Let her alone – don’t pick on cripples.
Rick Ballard (e3e91f) — 11/9/2008 @ 2:13 pmTo clarify, a pseudo-ironized beta is a gamma, and I fear it’s true.
happyfeet (5836ae) — 11/9/2008 @ 2:14 pmEric, cher, I don’t know if Palin is smart or not.
wheelers_cat (98fa0c) — 11/9/2008 @ 2:14 pmEmpirical data would argue for not.
What I do know, is at this point in time, she is a demagogue, as defined by the Founders.
A populist candidate that could be elected only on her personal popularity, impoverished in the qualification department.
Populist chic.
Baracky is a debutante for the ages, nishi. Girl, you know it’s true.
happyfeet (5836ae) — 11/9/2008 @ 2:15 pmThat’s a Milli Vanilli allusion.
happyfeet (5836ae) — 11/9/2008 @ 2:20 pmhappyfeet is now banned for calling Allahpundit a “bitch.”
Anyone who wants to make it three bannings for this thread?
Patterico (cc3b34) — 11/9/2008 @ 2:23 pmJeez. I didn’t call allahpundit a bitch, psycho did, and psycho is smarter than me.
happyfeet (5836ae) — 11/9/2008 @ 2:30 pmAs are you, based on the history and content of your posts—and your very own definitions you apply to readily to others.
Cura te ipsum
Not that I suspect you know much about the Founders beyond the Cliff Notes. Or maybe a book or two by that Zinn poseur. Few students today do.
In any event, perhaps more appropriately, go re-read Matthew 7: 3 – 5.
Try to quit insulting people. It really won’t make you feel better.
Rick, there may be something to your post, indeed.
Eric Blair (a723e0) — 11/9/2008 @ 2:30 pmI think happyfeet was making fun of another troll, Patterico. I don’t believe he, himself, was calling Allah a bitch. I hope he emails you and explains for himself.
nk (95bfab) — 11/9/2008 @ 2:31 pmPatterico, things are getting heated. My dislike of troll games is getting the better of me, and I apologize. I’ll quit posting on this thread, in case I am putting accelerant on an unnecessary fire.
Eric Blair (a723e0) — 11/9/2008 @ 2:32 pmThat’s ok, nk. This has a sort of looking for a reason feel about it.
happyfeet (5836ae) — 11/9/2008 @ 2:33 pmAnd I have tried to help!
wheelers_cat (98fa0c) — 11/9/2008 @ 2:34 pmI went to rebuildtheparty and told Ruffini he has to choose between Palin and the youth vote.
Mostly young people in college think she is a “retard”, the Urban Dictionary definition, not the clinical one.
That’s interesting about Palin because virtually everything you’ve said about her applies to Obama, too.
DRJ (cb68f2) — 11/9/2008 @ 2:35 pm… except for young people’s perception of Palin vs their perception of Obama, but most high school and college students I know aren’t that practical. I know that will change when they start supporting themselves.
DRJ (cb68f2) — 11/9/2008 @ 2:36 pmBTW: I would have voted “no” on Prop. 8, too. Something about not picking my pocket or breaking my leg. Or, maybe, I’ll look out for my pathway to hell and allow other people to look out for themselves. And stuff like that.
nk (95bfab) — 11/9/2008 @ 2:37 pmSure kate, and I hoped you used the term breeder-bot, because that’s always so helpful.
Mossberg500 (9fd170) — 11/9/2008 @ 2:38 pmOh…Patterico…not feets.
wheelers_cat (98fa0c) — 11/9/2008 @ 2:38 pmHe was just quoting someone else.
I’m sorry for plaguing Eric.
I’ll leave, but unban feets please.
Ask Jeff G.
Feets is good ppl, I’m not.
nk,
Can you explain in a little more detail? I don’t have time to read every comment and try to figure it out myself.
happyfeet already left a comment in moderation saying that I was looking for an excuse to ban him, which is not true, but which indicates he’s unlikely to e-mail me and explain it himself.
If you explain it to my satisfaction, I’ll unban him later when I get home.
Patterico (6faa00) — 11/9/2008 @ 2:40 pm“everything you’ve said about her applies to Obama, too.”
well….no.
wheelers_cat (98fa0c) — 11/9/2008 @ 2:44 pmbecause musicians like for Obama to use their music.
They even write music for him.
Patterico, just ask Jeff G.
Feets is an honored poster/commenter at PW.
Relly, if you are going to ban someone, you can please a lot of people by banning me.
And I’m used to it.
Lol…I been banned at lgf, and dkos, and unclaimed territory, and chicago boyz, anchoress, feministe, althouse….I can’t even remember all my bannings.
wheelers_cat (98fa0c) — 11/9/2008 @ 2:50 pmI’m an equal opportunity internet pariah.
“Feets is good ppl, I’m not.”
First true thing I’ve seen nishi say on this blog.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 11/9/2008 @ 2:52 pmPatterico #93,
I am going by
Allahpundit is sort of a little bitch I’ve heard, for real. Ok psycho told me.
I think that he failed to indicate sufficiently that he was making fun of Kevin or Nishi or whomever. But I hope that he will take the trouble to tell you this himself. Maybe I have not been paying enough attention, but I have not seen anything like this from him before. He’s pretty much anti-Obama but then so am I as much as I’m trying to hide it.
nk (95bfab) — 11/9/2008 @ 2:54 pmI’ve always found feets very good to have around. I don’t what was up with the comment. As with nk, I found it out of character. I’m probably not seeing the humor.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 11/9/2008 @ 3:01 pmJeez. You misrepresented my comment and made me sound super petulant instead of sorta petulant. It just had a looking for a reason feel cause it was so abrupt and arbitrary. You have to remember the people what only know Allah from Hot Air don’t have any reason to think he’s sacrosanct or anything, though I understand he used to be a neat guy.
This place is very eggshellsy I think and not very welcoming of an Outlaw such as myself. I’m sorry for not respecting the decorum of your blog. Anyway, I’m not mad and I only came over here as a friendly gesture anyway cause of the contretemps and I thought it might help people not get all sides-choosey. Fail. I look forward to your LAT retrospective and I promise I won’t call you Liesl’s boyfriend anymore.
happyfeet (5836ae) — 11/9/2008 @ 3:01 pmoh. my bad was that comment was for nishi and I didn’t think it would be that controversial. What happened to the old Allah is sort of an Internet staple I thought.
happyfeet (5836ae) — 11/9/2008 @ 3:06 pm[Released from moderation per Patterico’s request. — DRJ]
I’ll unban happyfeet now.
DRJ (cb68f2) — 11/9/2008 @ 3:06 pmYou guys may not be getting just how upset ‘feets’ is over the fraud’s election. His reaction had more to do with the subject of his disdain having been anti-Palin than anything else. I don’t bother to read the subject’s babbling and whining so I can’t offer an opinion as to justification of ‘feets’ remarks.
Now – be nice to nishi. Try and think of yourself as her parents. Avert your eyes and try not to blame yourselves.
Rick Ballard (e3e91f) — 11/9/2008 @ 3:10 pmoh. Well my comments what are stuck in moderation can stay there. I am sorry for disrepecting the decorum of your blog and I don’t want to explain cause it will only make matters more worser I think.
happyfeet (5836ae) — 11/9/2008 @ 3:10 pmoh. Now they got unstucked. Okey dokey then. I think I will go to my quiet place now.
happyfeet (5836ae) — 11/9/2008 @ 3:12 pmexcept thank you everyone for getting my back
happyfeet (5836ae) — 11/9/2008 @ 3:14 pmhappyfeet,
We’re usually pretty relaxed here but things have been more dignified since the election. We even dress for dinner now.
DRJ (cb68f2) — 11/9/2008 @ 3:17 pmwheelers_cat:
I concede the entertainment world doesn’t like conservatives. So why are you tailoring my quotes to make yourself look good?
DRJ (cb68f2) — 11/9/2008 @ 3:20 pmI will endeavor to practice a vigorous circumspection in future, DRJ.
happyfeet (5836ae) — 11/9/2008 @ 3:22 pmDRJ:
That’s my favorite bit from the first season of “30 Rock.” Alec Baldwin’s character has been asking Tina Fey’s character for a “funny line” for an upcoming speech.
In his tuxedo, Baldwin’s character says the joke Fey’s character originated was too topical, since the speech won’t be for several weeks.
Fey’s character said, “It’s not tonight? Why are you wearing a tuxedo?”
Baldwin’s character looks at her for a moment, then says “It’s after six. What am I, a farmer?”
Your dressing for dinner comment made me think of that. So much for wearing pajamas while bloggin!
Eric Blair (a723e0) — 11/9/2008 @ 3:22 pmDRJ, re: #106. I hope your question was rhetorical. Trying to get into that sort of thing is what got me so angry.
But you have established that you are a more evolved person than I am online…and I tip my hat to you regarding that truth.
Eric Blair (a723e0) — 11/9/2008 @ 3:24 pmThanks for the laugh, Eric. It helped restore my spirits after reading your ‘bong hits for students’ comment and Patterico’s ‘votes for illegal immigrants’ post.
As for 106 – I consider it the end of my discussion with wheelers_cat, not the beginning.
DRJ (cb68f2) — 11/9/2008 @ 3:25 pmAlso, the last part of #95 answers your question quite clearly.
Eric Blair (a723e0) — 11/9/2008 @ 3:25 pmI agree, Eric.
DRJ (cb68f2) — 11/9/2008 @ 3:27 pmI’m an equal opportunity internet pariah.
You can’t go on forever, like this, nishi. It’s not healthy to devote all your emotions to the internet. Have you read Mikhail Bulkakov’s “The Master and Margarita”?
nk (95bfab) — 11/9/2008 @ 3:29 pmWe must do something, nationally, about voter registration and voter issues. Enough! Just ask Norm Coleman.
EVERY “suddenly found” ballot is for Franken?
I cannot see how it is racist to insist on photo ID in the polling place, nor to outlaw same day registration. The former is easy to justify: you can’t cash a check without photo ID.
Take all that ACORN money and use it to get free IDs to people.
I’m also worried about shenanigans with absentee voting. I would fine if all absentee voting was made illegal…and voting day made a holiday.
Remember that Hugh Hewitt wrote an important book years ago: “If It’s Not Close, They Can’t Cheat.” Or something similar.
We need to say enough!
Eric Blair (a723e0) — 11/9/2008 @ 3:29 pmAnd DRJ, regarding my stoned-out students….
Tru dat, as my students like to say, trying to sound all gangsta. But the way, I doubt that the Three Amigos bothered to vote, even via absentee. They were no doubt running low on rolling papers…
Eric Blair (a723e0) — 11/9/2008 @ 3:33 pmnk, yup, and i read My Life as a Dog, and Mbi (We) po russki.
lol.
The only thing I can find that Palin has read is the little house on the prairie books. do you know anything else she may have read?
Whew, tyvm for bringing feets back, DRJ.
I’m good, nk, I can comment at Culture 11 and the American Scene.
wheelers_cat (98fa0c) — 11/9/2008 @ 4:37 pmThose guys are used to my skull furniture.
btw, Culture 11 is an Earth Math, for those of you that have read Anathem.
and…..I guess feets was referrin to the bad old days.
wheelers_cat (98fa0c) — 11/9/2008 @ 4:42 pmBefore La Malkin had Allah pithed and neutered.
He knows the outlaws of Known Blogspace used to hang at PW and mock the blogosphere-establishment with subversive midnight haiku.
Those were the days….INDCBill, Jeff Percifeld, Hubris, Lauren, Allah, Jeff,…..haha.
Wow, I would have liked an invite to the naked dinners!
Patricia (ee5c9d) — 11/9/2008 @ 4:54 pmI don’t think Allah has been “neutered” by Michelle, since she’s to the right of him on some of these issues.
And Rick, I can tell you are one of these folks who prides himself on Telling It Like It Is, defined as “being rude” — but I’m a little sick of people who feel like they have to be jerks to Tell It Like It Is. If you feel the need to insult Allah rather than disagree with him, you can toddle along.
Your choice.
Patterico (c12f31) — 11/9/2008 @ 4:58 pmAnd to make it clear, I asked DRJ to unban happyfeet, as many made it clear that his comment was intended as a joke.
Patterico (c12f31) — 11/9/2008 @ 5:00 pmPatterico,
Reread – “His reaction had more to do with the subject of his disdain having been anti-Palin than anything else. I don’t bother to read the subject’s babbling and whining so I can’t offer an opinion as to justification of ‘feets’ remarks.”
Why do you think I was referring to Allahpundit? Happyfeet operates on more than one level. Some people are actually capable of doing so.
Rick Ballard (e3e91f) — 11/9/2008 @ 5:07 pm“I will endeavor to practice a vigorous circumspection in future, DRJ.”
feets – Calm down. I don’t think she was asking you to do anything surgical to your penis for Pete’s sake.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 11/9/2008 @ 5:11 pmI’d worry if the Patterico brand was co-opted by any other, Allahpundit or Michelle Malkin to mention two. Otherwise, I visit Allahpundit regurarly, Michelle seldom, and I’m glad their views are out there for us to see.
nk (95bfab) — 11/9/2008 @ 5:12 pm“read the subject’s” – notice that it doesn’t say “read his”?
Damn, Patterico, I know you haven’t followed the griefer’s career but c’mon.
Rick Ballard (e3e91f) — 11/9/2008 @ 5:12 pmI’ll nerve laenr how to sllep.
nk (95bfab) — 11/9/2008 @ 5:14 pmOh wait….We was yegeny zamietien I think….damn russian lit.
Trust me Patterico, the Creator of Worlds was sooooo much cooler then.
The Way Allah Was–> they say this kid he’s got soul.
Dude…..all the musik i relly like doesn’t have mtv videos yet…what does that mean?
wheelers_cat (98fa0c) — 11/9/2008 @ 5:19 pmAm I too cool?
Or not cool enough?
Emo-identity crisis!!!!
Must…..go….read….Heidegger……
wheelers_cat (98fa0c) — 11/9/2008 @ 5:37 pmRick:
Very well, then.
daleyrocks:
Funny. Now, to be sure we’re all on the same time, let’s all circumcise our watches.
Patterico (3a0c1b) — 11/9/2008 @ 5:37 pmThanks, daley. I was wondering how I was gonna back off that one. nishi if you did a music blog I would click and click. The bookmarks are piling up. Rick is not rude he’s cordial and we like him but alls well that ends well so let us not speak further of this afternoon’s unpleasantness I think. Besides, there’s dirty socialism afoot and we must be vigilant.
happyfeet (5836ae) — 11/9/2008 @ 5:38 pmIs Rick the Rick who always says “Cordially”? Because he didn’t say that.
Patterico (3a0c1b) — 11/9/2008 @ 5:40 pmPatterico – That would be Ric Locke.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 11/9/2008 @ 5:46 pmNope. I’m not cordially, Rick. I’m definitely rude to griefers and troofers but very rarely rude to anyone else. Direct, factual and opinionated but not intentionally rude. I’ll back off on the griefers and troofers here and stick to factually based observations.
Such as “Obama is an evil man due to his support of legal homicide practiced upon innocent infants.”daleyrocks – Cordially, Rick isn’t Ric Locke either. Ric never uses the k.
Rick Ballard (e3e91f) — 11/9/2008 @ 5:50 pmRic Locke is an immensely wise man. I aspire to be half that wise. I should probably get started soon I guess.
happyfeet (5836ae) — 11/9/2008 @ 6:00 pmWho in the heck is allahpundit………
Actually I love Allahs battery park sense of New York pragmatism.
AP of course would have voted no on Prop 8 – Allah has this wierd belief in there is good in everyone and his fellow human beings are more valuable to him than the faux ideology of the week club
Drives some conservative purity members nuts
EricPWJohnson (cc9286) — 11/9/2008 @ 6:01 pmI must not get out enough. I’ve never heard of a few of these people.
Note to Patricia – You’re always invited but it’s PJ wear, not French Riviera-style.
DRJ (cb68f2) — 11/9/2008 @ 6:09 pmMaybe I’m just a narcissist, but back at #50 I posted something serious !!@(*&%*&(*^^&%*&^)(*^^&!#@!$!@$#@$%++**^&&%&%*&&%%(&^%(*&%
I say that once someone gets too obnoxious ALL of their posts are held in moderation until someone with sense can play with to be so utterly ridiculous that even the poster is annoyed by it, and post it under the original signature. That way numerous posts reflecting on appropriate Internet etiquette will be “authored” by Kevin that will irritate him to no end.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/9/2008 @ 7:50 pmMD in Philly,
I haven’t joined the discussion on Prop 8 but I’m responding now because you used the word ya’ll. That warmed my heart.
I don’t think anyone can promise supporters of marriage that expanding marriage to include same-sex partners won’t result in future changes to the definition of marriage. Should that occur? Probably not from an intellectual standpoint but, like society, laws are flexible and this would be a change I can envision happening. In other words, I don’t think it’s hard to imagine other groups might successfully ask the courts and/or the legislature to open the marital door a bit wider for them.
My solution — and I don’t really like it, but this is where I’m at — is that the government should offer civil unions and marriage should be left to religions (both traditional and others). The main reason I like this has nothing to do with same-sex marriage. To me, marriage was seriously undermined by no-fault divorce laws and that’s when marriage lost much of its value to society.
Society comes close to treating marriage like leasing an apartment, and I’ve actually had clients tell me it’s harder to break a lease than get out of marriage. Thus, I’m in favor of government playing the role of a super apartment manager/leasing agent and civil unions serving as contractual bonds that give the parties a right to publicly-recognized benefits. If you want more than that, you can go to your church, temple, mosque, etc., for a more spiritual union.
DRJ (cb68f2) — 11/9/2008 @ 8:19 pm“To me, marriage was seriously undermined by no-fault divorce laws and that’s when marriage lost much of its value to society.”
Absolutely. I would have said “destroyed” rather than “seriously undermined” but marriage, as well as many other good things, died under the penumbra of an emanation.
Eisenhower made a slight miscalculation with his appointment of Warren and Brennan to the court.
Rick Ballard (e3e91f) — 11/9/2008 @ 8:30 pmThank you DRJ and Rick. I actually used that point as well a few weeks ago discussing “why marriage means anything” with a young adult. Another example of where an idea that may have had some good intentions (easier for women in abusive marriages to get out?) ended up hurting many more.
I agree with a previous discussion, that “ya’ll” and it’s variations is superior to using “you” for a plural pronoun.
DRJ- I want to know when you are going to make up the rotation for “creative rewording” of appropriate troll comments. I’ll volunteer.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/10/2008 @ 4:37 amThe use of y’all is generally the sign of a good person 😉
JD (831256) — 11/10/2008 @ 5:30 amConvince me how two men or tow women are in any way similar to a man and a woman, other than the fact that there are two of them, and I will gladly change my position.
Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 11/10/2008 @ 5:33 amI’m pretty sure that CJ George is up for retention in 2010 (along with Chin who dissented).
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 11/11/2008 @ 12:34 amBy the way, if the “revision” argument holds, based on the level of constitutional impact, you can say goodbye to Prop 13 which is assuredly a revision by that standard.
Defenders of Prop 8 can use that for free.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 11/11/2008 @ 12:37 amKevin, a revision is what a majority of justices say it is. There is nothing in the CA constitution that requires them to be consistent, and even if it did they would be the ones to decide what consistency is.
I don’t think Prop 8 will live to see 2009.
Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 11/11/2008 @ 10:51 amI think the ‘its a revision’ argument is inappropriate here; that provision is intended to prevent wholesale alteration of the constitution, not changes to single provisions.
Don’t get me wrong; I’m hurt, and angry, and somewhat bitter about the outcome of the vote. But the right solution is to hold another vote repealing it in a few years, not to push a silly legal argument.
aphrael (9e8ccd) — 11/15/2008 @ 8:57 pmDRJ, 48% of California’s voters voted ‘No’ on Proposition 8, and I would be astonished if even so many as a quarter of them were gay.
aphrael (9e8ccd) — 11/15/2008 @ 8:59 pmI would like to see civil “marriages” extended to gays, but at the same time I would want an explicit amendment to the California Constitution promising that religious organizations reserve the right to deny marriage based upon their beliefs. If the Unitarian Church wants to marry gays, fine by me, but those religious denominations that want to keep the traditional definition of marriage ought to be allowed to do so without the threat of state interference.
I would support that.
Churches are free to grant their religious sacraments to those who they deem worthy, and not to grant them to those who they deem unworthy, and civil society and the state have no right or power to tell them yea or nay.
I think it’s redundant to write that into the Constitution because I believe the free exercise/establishment clauses of the first amendment already say that; but, since I agree with the principle, I would have no problem voting to make it explicit.
aphrael (9e8ccd) — 11/15/2008 @ 9:02 pmHerrina, at #32: to be fair, California statute already provides for ‘domestic partnerships’ which are almost equivalent to marriages. Those domestic partnerships were found not to violate Proposition 22, which had identical wording to Proposition 8, and will probably not be held to violate Proposition 8; and attempts to repeal the DP law by initiative have failed in every year since it passed.
aphrael (9e8ccd) — 11/15/2008 @ 9:04 pm