Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Civil Rights > Gay and Lesbian Rights

Gay and Lesbian Rights Gay and Lesbian Political Rights Forum - For topics and discussions about LGBT


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 11th, 2008, 12:17 PM   #1
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,677
CT Gov. denounces judicial activism on homosexual marriage

Los Angeles - Emphasizing the urgency of California’s Proposition 8--ProtectMarriage.com, today the Connecticut Supreme Court legalized gay marriage by a narrow margin, 4-3. Close votes also defined gay marriage in the states of Massachusetts and California. The State of Iowa was also scheduled this week to hear arguments on same sex marriage.





In answer to today’s decision, the Protect Marriage Coalition and its volunteers are stepping up efforts and continuing their unprecedented grassroots campaign across the state of California. This weekend hundreds of thousands of lawn signs will appear on lawns in every community. Church services in some African American ministries will cut their meetings short to allow their members to get out into neighborhoods and post signs.







The Protect Marriage campaign is sending its message out on radio and television stations throughout the state and informing voters about the profound consequences Californians will face if traditional marriage laws are not restored.







Two Los Angeles ministers who have been strong advocates for Proposition 8 Protect Marriage spoke out today on Connecticut’s court decision.





Pastor Dudley Rutherford of Shepherd of the Hills Church in Los Angeles:

“What’s happening in Connecticut in other parts of the U.S. is a travesty and a tragedy for our young people and future generations. What happens in California sweeps across the country. On November 4th when we make this stand, the country will know that Californians stand for marriage as it has been known through all generations,” said Reverend Dudley Rutherford.





Pastor Ed Smith of Zoe Christian Fellowship Church, a predominantly African American congregation, of Whittier:

“I am very disappointed in what I heard today with Connecticut legalizing gay marriage. Our crisis in our government as well as in our economic system is a result of a moral failure and that is why now more than ever we need Proposition 8 and the strength of marriage, families and protections for children.”





Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell, responding to the decision, said today that she personally disagreed with the court.







“I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut.”
garysher is offline  
Old October 11th, 2008, 12:44 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
tristanrobin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: New Haven, CT
Posts: 20,828
Quote:
Originally Posted by garysher

Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell, responding to the decision, said today that she personally disagreed with the court.


...but would not contest the decision by the highest court in the state.
tristanrobin is offline  
Old October 11th, 2008, 01:21 PM   #3
forester814
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Jodi Rell has the right idea.



I have no problem with the governor voicing her disagreement.

That's what freedom of speech is all about.



More importantly, she understands that the state supreme court is the constitutional authority on this matter, something the Prop 8 goons do not understand.
 
Old October 11th, 2008, 01:59 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
tyrone_det's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by forester814



More importantly, she understands that the state supreme court is the constitutional authority on this matter, something the Prop 8 goons do not understand.


You are right unless Prop 8 is a proposal to amend the state constitution. The state's high court has the ultimate authority to interpret the state's constitution, but its interpretations can always be overriden by amendments to the state constitution.



I don't keep up with Prop 8 because I don't vote in California. However, if it is an attempt to amend the constitution rather than a new statute, then I wouldn't characterize them as "goons" just because they want to amend the state constitution to override what they feel is a bad decision by the state supreme court. There is nothing "goonish" about doing exactly what people should do if they want to override state supreme courts. If Californians had voted for a statute approving gay marriage and then the state supreme court invalidated it on state constitutional grounds, I would expect that you would want to amend the state constitution to provide a state constitutional right to gay marriage. There would be nothing goonish about that, either.



The Connecticut governor probably knew that an appeal would be a waste of time unless the state supreme court based its decision on the federal constitution.
tyrone_det is offline  
Old October 11th, 2008, 02:19 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
tyrone_det's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by forester814



More importantly, she understands that the state supreme court is the constitutional authority on this matter, something the Prop 8 goons do not understand.


Prop 8 is an attempt to amend the California constitution. Since the California Supreme Court stated that gays were entitled to marry because of the California constitution, the proper way to override that decision is to amend the state constitution. A proper (and I understand there are questions about whether the amendment will do what the supporters say it will do) amendment is the proper and approved way for the people to override state supreme court decisions on state constitutional law issues. It happens all the time.



I support gay marriage. I made these two posts on Prop 8, however, because I don't like the name calling by both sides. Exercising the right to amend the constitution is not goonish. Its legal and its the traditional way to override supreme court decisions on constitutional issues.



I don't know Forester and I'm not trying to pick on her, but she posted a while back about trolls and how much she didn't like their name calling and abuse. I agree, but I see some conflict in someone making very pointed statements in that regard then calling people who are doing what they are constitutionally permitted to do "goons". If the shoe were on the other foot and you were trying to pass a proposition to constitutional mandate gay marriage in California, I would likewise object to someone calling gay marriage advocates "goons" and I don't like references to gay marriage advocates as "snivelers" and "whiners" (as I've seen here on occasion).



Those who boycott and extort to get their way are the goons, e.g. the Christian groups who want to boycott companies who take positions on various issues.
tyrone_det is offline  
Old October 11th, 2008, 03:10 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
tristanrobin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: New Haven, CT
Posts: 20,828
This attempt to amend the constitution is because constitutionally they are unable to legally discriminate against gays. It requires a constitutional amendment to make gays second class citizens.



That's why they are referred to as goons.



I'm sitting here wondering how absolutely ANY other minority community would take a popularity vote on their rights. My guess: most would openly declare war.
tristanrobin is offline  
Old October 11th, 2008, 04:59 PM   #7
forester814
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyrone_det
Prop 8 is an attempt to amend the California constitution. Since the California Supreme Court stated that gays were entitled to marry because of the California constitution, the proper way to override that decision is to amend the state constitution. A proper (and I understand there are questions about whether the amendment will do what the supporters say it will do) amendment is the proper and approved way for the people to override state supreme court decisions on state constitutional law issues. It happens all the time.



I support gay marriage. I made these two posts on Prop 8, however, because I don't like the name calling by both sides. Exercising the right to amend the constitution is not goonish. Its legal and its the traditional way to override supreme court decisions on constitutional issues.



I don't know Forester and I'm not trying to pick on her, but she posted a while back about trolls and how much she didn't like their name calling and abuse. I agree, but I see some conflict in someone making very pointed statements in that regard then calling people who are doing what they are constitutionally permitted to do "goons". If the shoe were on the other foot and you were trying to pass a proposition to constitutional mandate gay marriage in California, I would likewise object to someone calling gay marriage advocates "goons" and I don't like references to gay marriage advocates as "snivelers" and "whiners" (as I've seen here on occasion).



Those who boycott and extort to get their way are the goons, e.g. the Christian groups who want to boycott companies who take positions on various issues.


Tyrone, you are absolutely right on all counts here.



I admit that sometimes, this whole situation gets to me, and I lose my composure.



I hereby withdraw my "goon" comment. It was inappropriate, and I apologize to anyone who may have been offended by it.



Likewise, on the matter of amending a state's constitution to override the state's supreme court ruling, yes, this is the correct legal avenue, and the people behind Prop 8 are clearly following the correct legal course to achieve their aims.



But let me be clear here:



I could not disagree more with the Prop 8 people.

I find their goals to be discriminatory and anti-American.



Furthermore, I find the people involved, who claim to be motivated largely by religion, to be both confused about the definition of civil marriage, and not terribly Christian.



And finally, in this particularly oppressive economic climate, I find their expenditure of time and manpower in this effort to be unforgiveably wasteful.
 
Old October 11th, 2008, 07:10 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
tyrone_det's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by forester814

But let me be clear here:



I could not disagree more with the Prop 8 people.

I find their goals to be discriminatory and anti-American.



Furthermore, I find the people involved, who claim to be motivated largely by religion, to be both confused about the definition of civil marriage, and not terribly Christian.



And finally, in this particularly oppressive economic climate, I find their expenditure of time and manpower in this effort to be unforgiveably wasteful.


Nicely said, Forester.



It will be an interesting election. The X factor has got to be those voters who do not have strong feelings one way or the other on gay marriage but who resent the state supreme court resolving a major social issue. I know some people who think the Calif. Supreme Court did the right thing but who also think they were legislating from the bench under the guise of a constitutionally-based decision.
tyrone_det is offline  
Old October 11th, 2008, 07:19 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
tyrone_det's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 820
Activists who cannot win at the legislative level have far too often been able to get their way through the courts on matters that did not involve civil rights issues. Now, where there is a legitimate argument that this is a civil rights issue not involving legislating from the bench, the opponents of Prop.8 are faced with some voters who will have their first chance to express their displeasure at courts who do legislate from the bench.



I'd run a campaign that said that by voting against Prop. 8, you are not giving the Supreme Court of California a license to resolve non-civil rights issues by edict.



I bet if the voters could vote yes, no, or "the Supreme Court can kiss my ass but I'll still vote no" Prop. 8 would fail miserably.
tyrone_det is offline  
Old October 11th, 2008, 07:35 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
tristanrobin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: New Haven, CT
Posts: 20,828
I don't believe that a popularity vote on a minority community's rights should be legal.



period
tristanrobin is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Civil Rights > Gay and Lesbian Rights

Tags
activism, denounces, gov, homosexual, judicial, marriage



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nh To Repeal Homosexual Marriage garysher Gay and Lesbian Rights 5 December 13th, 2011 09:39 AM
How Will Scotus Rule On Homosexual Marriage? garysher Gay and Lesbian Rights 116 September 1st, 2011 12:37 PM
Homosexual Fires Christian For Opposing Homosexual Marriage garysher Gay and Lesbian Rights 11 August 13th, 2011 11:44 AM
Arizonans defend marriage from homosexual activism garysher Gay and Lesbian Rights 16 August 31st, 2008 07:42 AM
The TRUTH about homosexual marriage garysher Gay and Lesbian Rights 227 August 8th, 2008 02:18 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.