That’s great. That means that they should have no difficulty winning initiative elections / legislative legislation creating same sex marriages among the states.
I realize it’s pointless to debate folks who think this way, but just for the record: if your pet law violates a constitution, it’s the proper role of the courts to throw that law out, no matter what the voters want. The Bradies are pissed off that we’re dismantling popular urban gun control laws by “judicial fiat”, too.
[Yes, I know the argument in Perry is less clear than in, say, Heller. But up until this month, courts had struck down discriminatory laws in states whose constitutions unambiguously forbade discrimination.]
Can’t the GOP be ahead of the curve for once? Here we have a gift handed to us by a GOP-appointed judge. It’s a chance to prove to gays and lesbians that we aren’t all homophobes. If we want tolerance as gun owners and property owners, we need to give tolerance when it comes to a discriminated minority. We should embrace Perry and beat Obama and the Dems over the head with it.
Where is the line for people who believe in separation of church and state and think the role of government should be, at the very most, a recorder of the public act of marriage?
So with Ann Coulter headlining HomoCon, will she do stand-up comedy about California? How can she not?
If you reject State-Supremacy you are now an anti-gay bigot. There is some statutory concern that The Supreme State could mandate Churches, and Pastors and Priests to perform same-sex marriages – paraphrasing as SF mayor Gavin Newsom triumphantly said, “Whether you like it, or not!”
August 13th, 2010 at 6:16 pm
That’s great. That means that they should have no difficulty winning initiative elections / legislative legislation creating same sex marriages among the states.
As opposed to judicial fiat.
August 14th, 2010 at 2:58 am
That graph looked like Mr. Johnson, some years ago. :{
August 14th, 2010 at 3:21 am
I realize it’s pointless to debate folks who think this way, but just for the record: if your pet law violates a constitution, it’s the proper role of the courts to throw that law out, no matter what the voters want. The Bradies are pissed off that we’re dismantling popular urban gun control laws by “judicial fiat”, too.
[Yes, I know the argument in Perry is less clear than in, say, Heller. But up until this month, courts had struck down discriminatory laws in states whose constitutions unambiguously forbade discrimination.]
August 14th, 2010 at 5:09 am
Gay
August 14th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
Can’t the GOP be ahead of the curve for once? Here we have a gift handed to us by a GOP-appointed judge. It’s a chance to prove to gays and lesbians that we aren’t all homophobes. If we want tolerance as gun owners and property owners, we need to give tolerance when it comes to a discriminated minority. We should embrace Perry and beat Obama and the Dems over the head with it.
August 14th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
Eew, what’s that stuff on the end of it?
August 15th, 2010 at 9:50 pm
Where is the line for people who believe in separation of church and state and think the role of government should be, at the very most, a recorder of the public act of marriage?
August 17th, 2010 at 3:48 pm
So with Ann Coulter headlining HomoCon, will she do stand-up comedy about California? How can she not?
If you reject State-Supremacy you are now an anti-gay bigot. There is some statutory concern that The Supreme State could mandate Churches, and Pastors and Priests to perform same-sex marriages – paraphrasing as SF mayor Gavin Newsom triumphantly said, “Whether you like it, or not!”