Publius at BigGovernment has the headline exactly right regarding the vote in Maine to reject same sex marriage:
Maine Agrees With Obama: No Same Sex Marriage
Once again, when given the chance to legalize gay marriage, voters have decided NO. Of course, Maine is just one of the backwoods, homophobic Conservative states…
Wait. What? They’re not? They’re actually quite Liberal? Oh, my bad…
From the Associated Press:
For the gay rights movement, which has gained a foothold in New England, it was a stinging defeat. Gay marriage has now lost in every state — 31 in all — in which it has been put to a popular vote. Gay-rights activists had hoped to buck that trend in Maine, framing same-sex marriage as a matter of equality for all families in a campaign that used 8,000 volunteers to get out the message.
I think the bolded statement pretty much says it all — an overwhelming majority in this country do not the government legalizing sames sex marriage.
But that doesn’t stop the Liberal media and political establishment from pushing for it in the face of the overwhelming opposition to it:
Five states have legalized gay marriage — Iowa, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire and Connecticut — but all did so through legislation or court rulings, not by popular vote.
If the people won’t vote the way you want them to, then dammit, just circument the will of the people. After all, the Government knows what’s better for us than we do.
Not surprising. When you ask them about the specifics, most Americans don’t support the Bill of Rights, either. That’s why the Constitution protects the rights of the individual against the tyranny of the majority. Gay marriage absolutely should be a right under the 9th Amendment, irregardless of what voters want.
Reference please for statement, “Most Americans don’t support the Bill of Rights, either.” I don’t believe it.
I disagree with that assumption, and have neither heard nor seen any evidence that would support that conclusion.
No, it doesn’t. It protects the representative nature of our system, where every citizen has an equal right to vote for their interest. I can think of nothing more anarchical than an individual’s right superseding that of the majority.
Ninth Amendment.
Calling on the vaguest of all the Bill of Rights to justify homosexual marriage, as opposed to the will of the people, is indicative of a narrow social agenda.
BTW, there is no such word as “irregardless,” it’s a double negative.
It took 100 years for Americans to enfranchise black citizens, and only after the courts repeatedly struck down state legislative attempts to prevent that from occurring. The 14th and 15th Amendments were passed in the 1860s, but the states and majorities of its citizens did not want equal rights for black people. Do you think the states had a right to ignore the Constitution because its voters disagreed with it?
The courts’ proper role under the Constitution is to interpret what the laws mean. Many states legislatures were violating the law of the land decades. Just as the courts led the way to passage of the Voting Rights Act thru Brown v. Board and other landmark civil rights cases, it will also lead the way to abolishing state-sanctioned privileges for citizens based on their sexual preferences.
I actually agree with this. Remember, we live in a republic and not a democracy. This was established because it protects the rights of those in the minority as well as the majority. Had we put civil rights legislation to the vote in 1964 we’d still have separate water fountains today.
I shudder to think some of the rights I enjoy could be stripped away by 50% + 1 of the votes in an election.