RECENT  POSTS:  » You know what's not presidential? Like at all? » Inevitable justice temporarily delayed in Alabama » Read: Fed. judge strikes Alabama marriage ban; no stay on ruling » Derisively remembering when full equality was in 'Jeopardy!' » When all else fails, demand your letters are capitalized » Major Iowa caucus player calls on next President to 'politely reject unjust SCOTUS opinions' » Photo: Supreme Court's Thomas poses with NOM's cofounder, major equality opponent » Wait, even NewsMax is now pushing back against anti-gay spin?! » Deflating the anti-gay right's latest 'gotcha!' » POTUS hails marriage equality in State of the Union speech  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

09/02/2010

Video: So if Boxer used unconstitutional means to win, would 'the people' have spoken then too?

by Jeremy Hooper

Carly Fiorina courts the evangelicals on the Christian Broadcasting Network:

"Well the people of California have spoken very clearly on this issue. Fortunately, the decision by a single judge, is the first in what will be a long, multi-step legal process. And I'm not a legal expert, but my opinion is that it will end up in the Supreme Court, and I think the people of California believe their votes count"

Right, Carly, but here's the thing: Ronald George is a legal expert. Vaughn Walker is a legal expert. Jerry Brown is a legal expert. And these folks all know that in a civil rights case like this, a bare majority of voters don't get the final say on a minority group's constitutional rights! Period.

Considering how completely split California is over this matter, as well as the laughable inability of the Prop 8 proponents to defend the bias in court, the 18,000+ legal gay marriages that happened in the state without incident, and the recent legal events that have clobbered so many of the majority tyranny arguments, it is downright offensive for any politician to act like the Golden State is a desert of gay rights support where multiple court opinions should be of less importance than a highly divisive, mostly faith-based vote. "The people" line may be red meat to those in the CBN audience who need to feel that their own personal hesitancy and/or detestation is, in fact, a suitable basis for setting civil law in this country. But for those who are seriously looking to determine whether a potential U.S. Senator is ready and willing to stand on principle rather than popularity, these water-muddying reductions of constitutional law and the independent judiciary's role in upholding it should sound like a talking point-embedded alarm clock, not a liberty bell.

***

*EARLIER: How Fiorina handled the Prop 8 question in last night's debate with incumbent Barbara Boxer

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails