ACLU Opposing the Will of the People at the State Level
Posted on June 7, 2006
Cross Posted from Gribbit’s Word The post was written by Gribbit and published by Jay. There seemed to be some kind of issue in publishing.
A central theme of the 2004 elections coinciding with the Presidential election was state amendments to their individual Constitutions defining marriage or banning same sex marriages. The ACLU has been successful in overturning these laws passed by the popular vote of the people in 2 states. Now, the ACLU is challenging another such law this time in the Volunteer State and the case is now coming before the state Supreme Court.
Several state representatives held a news conference to urge the Tennessee Supreme Court to reject an ACLU challenge on the constitutionality of the marriage amendment and let it go before a voter referendum.
They cited a survey by RealMarriage.org, a Brentwood, Tenn.-based group trying to get the amendment passed, that indicates most Tennesseans want to be able to vote on defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
“It’ll be a sad day when queers and lesbians are allowed to get married … and kiss in front of the courthouse,” Rep. Eric Watson, R-Cleveland, said.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Senate rejected a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. The 49-48 procedural vote was 18 short of the 67 needed for the Senate to amend the constitution. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., criticized this week for bringing the matter to the floor in an election year, said those who favor the amendment will not give up.
“We must continue fighting to ensure the Constitution is amended by the will of the people rather than by judicial activism,” he said. SOURCE
So what are we to do? States are passing these measures by popular vote and those pushing the depravity of same sex marriage cannot prevent it from happening using the ballot so they resort to the judicial system. They bank on the activism of jurists to side with the minority. I’m sorry, but the way I was taught, majority rules is the democratic way.
The people in Tennessee want this law. But the ACLU and the gay lobby is doing all that they can to keep us from having our will and force us to accept unnatural coupling as healthy and normal. Where does it end?
End taxpayer funding of the ACLU. Sign our online petition and call, write, and email your Senators and Congressman. Let’s put this to an end.
This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay or Gribbit. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already on-board.
Trackback URL
Comments
22 Responses to “ACLU Opposing the Will of the People at the State Level”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
If the will of the people is to discriminate and oppress, then maybe the people need a kick in the teeth.
http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/state/article/0,1406,KNS_348_4757325,00.html
It’s worse…the ACLU wants to deny the right of the people to even vote at all on the issue. The ACLU will fail in this case because of PRIMO-LAME-O arguments. The state constitution requires that the public be notifed of ballot issues six months prior to the vote. The state published the notification online nearly EIGHT months prior, so the ACLU is **actually** arguing that this isn’t sufficient because “not everyone has internet access.” Yeah and not everyone gets their paper delivered either.
Not only that, the Alliance Defense Fund is representing the state legislators (ADF was approved by more than two-thirds of both houses — one GOP controlled, the other Dem.-controlled — to represent the legislature), so the ACLU can look forward to another defeat at the hands of ADF.
One thing I’m having trouble with is the “quote” from Rep. Watson. I have not seen this in any other news report, so I’m questioning the veracity of what is certainly an inappropriate, unprofessional and irrelevant comment regarding what should be strictly a legal issue.
CR: “If the will of the people is to discriminate and oppress”
No,the will of the people is to protect a societally-beneficial institution from being unilaterally redefined by a miroscopic, but disproportionately wealthy and powerful, political interest group and their rabid lawyers with the ACLU. The ACLU has no interest in protecting marriage or extending “marriage” to “oppressed” groups, but to destroy marriage. They are on the record NOW in support of polygamy, so it is easily concluded that chaos is the goal, not some lofty-sounding principle of “equality.”
By what measure BV??? Sorry to throw the ants on your Candy Land, but its seems like you are suffering from an acute case of Selectivitis:
Alabama passes its marriage amendment by a four-to-one margin
http://www.al.com/election/coverage/index.ssf?amendments
Pennsylvania amendment moves forward in convincing fashion
The PA marriage amendment passed a hurdle in state house where it was approved on a bi-partisan vote and by a better than 2-1 margin.
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16747737&BRD=2212&PAG=461&dept_id=465812&rfi=6
The federal amendment isn’t dead yet, so I’d get out of the Jumpy Castle before you go Corky on us again and mess your Underoos.
The more you mess with marriage, the more likely it is the people will wake up…you can take the “polls” and stock them next to the Charmin. The only polls that count are the ones that happen at the ballot. EVERY, EVERY, EVERY time marriage is front of the people (even in the Blue States — OR, HA, MI, CA (Prop 22) and counting) — marriage wins despite what Human Rights Campaign and Evan Wolfson would have you Chaosmongers fantasize about.
Captain Rational,
Those that opress the majority are dictators. Those that deprive human beings of their natural right to life and health are tyrants. You do all of those by supporting homosexual marriage. I guess you want to use those jackboots your wear to kick free Americans in the teeth. I wonder do you wear a pink swaztika and say Heil Hitler also?
I support civil rights for homosexuals; therefore, I’m a Nazi. Godwin’s Law is affirmed in the grandest of fashions.
Please, please tell me you’re joking, because you’re starting to scare me. Please.
Kerwin:
While I am impressed that anyone in the world still knows the definition of the word “jackboot,” let alone uses it in casual conversation, I’m sorry to report that you’re sounding a bit tyrannical yourself.
Please give me the name of one gay person or supporter of gay rights who has deprived you of one or more of your constitutional rights.
Everyone:
I bet if you looked hard enough, you could find a few states worth of Americans who still think segregated schools are an excellent idea. And you wouldn’t have to look too far beyond a Promise Keepers convention to find a whole lot of people who can’t believe women ever got the vote. If they all moved to, say, Arkansas (causing everyone else to flee the state immediately), and voted democratically to set aside certain public schools just for white kids and to outlaw women’s voting, should we shrug our shoulders and write it off as the will of the people? No. And we should also not shrug off the aforementioned attempted limits to the freedom and equality (guaranteed in the Constitution) of gay people.
Maven,
“Please give me the name of one gay person or supporter of gay rights who has deprived you of one or more of your constitutional rights“.
I had a friend deprived of his right to life by Aids. If you know the history of the disease you know it was brought into the United States through homosexual conduct and at least 50% of its victims are still homosexuals despite the fact gays make up less than 5% of population.
“The CDC reported that homosexuals account for 48 percent of adult AIDS cases, 27 percent involve intravenous-drug users and 7 percent involve people who fit both categories. In 15 percent of AIDS cases, the risk factor was heterosexual intercourse. In the other cases, the cause was such factors as receiving tainted blood or tissues, or it remains unidentified.”
Note heterosexual intercourse accounts for a mere 15% though 95% of the population is heterosexual. Heterosexuals also commit sodomy which is the risk factor in gays.
Another risk factor is being black a condition you can not change by changing your actions. I have heard that blacks have a higher rate of both homosexuality and drug use which may account for the high rate of infection among blacks. Another possibility is contact in prison since blacks are imprisoned at a higher rate than other races.
“I bet if you looked hard enough, you could find a few states worth of Americans who still think segregated schools are an excellent idea.”
The Democrat party is rife with segregationist of all races and ethnicities which probably comes from the socialist mind set. The Republicans have some but corporate greed usually only sees green and the more of it you have, the more you count. Those are the ideas of the extremist of both parties.
If I remember Promise Keepers it was men promising to be good husbands and fathers. You are proposing that they should have allowed women to promise to be good husbands and fathers. You have definitely been listening to homosexual propaganda.
My source for the cite about the CDC is http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041202-125443-1708r.htm
Dear Rev. Phelps,
Huh?
Love,
Capt. Mortimer T. Rational
I’d hate to break it to all the moonbats, but no homosexual is having his rights trampled on. They can marry just like heteros. Its just that they have to marry women, not men. Americans aren’t oppressing anyone by not allowing homosexual marriages. A marriage is between an man and a woman. Period. That shouldn’t change just because a couple of gays want tax breaks.
“I support civil rights for homosexuals; therefore, I’m a Nazi.”
Captain, haven’t you heard? Everyone who disagrees with Mr. Brown is a Nazi. See Comment #3 on this thread.
As has become standard, BV ignores every point inconvenient to his agenda (and get soooo pissy while doing so). I know it’s been hard for you to engage in any critical thought since you dropped out after that grueling three weeks of community college, so I will just repost the points you ran from and chalk your avoidance up to limited attention span:
Alabama passes its marriage amendment by a four-to-one margin
http://www.al.com/election/coverage/index.ssf?amendments
Pennsylvania amendment moves forward in convincing fashion
The PA marriage amendment passed a hurdle in state house where it was approved on a bi-partisan vote and by a better than 2-1 margin.
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16747737&BRD=2212&PAG=461&dept_id=465812&rfi=6
The more you mess with marriage, the more likely it is the people will wake up…you can take the “polls” and stock them next to the Charmin. The only polls that count are the ones that happen at the ballot. EVERY, EVERY, EVERY time marriage is front of the people (even in the Blue States — OR, HA, MI, CA (Prop 22) and counting) — marriage wins despite what Human Rights Campaign and Evan Wolfson would have you Chaosmongers fantasize about.
*You are already into reruns after one unmemorable season. Are you ever going to make this exciting BV?
I also notice BV likes to argue against points that no one is making. I’ve looked over my posts, and I fail to find any that said all heteros marry for love, as good old BV suggests.
BV and others can get as pissy as they want, but despite their gleeful “Na, na, I can marry a queer.” they really can’t. Most states still will never allow this thank God. All the God-insulting, impotently frustrated trolls like BV in the world won’t change that.
Thanks for bringing up my state PA, Glib. People have common sense here.
Oh, and BV: Instead of insulting Kerwin, try actually proving him wrong. I’m enjoying watching him run circles around your stupidity.
Captain Rational,
Civil rights are the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Homosexual behavior is not a protected activity. In point of fact William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England” which is often used to interpret the Constitution regarded homosexuality as a horrendous crime. At least some of the 13 states regarded homosexuality as a capital crime. You are misinterpreting the U.S. Constitution in order to deprive homosexuals and their victims of their right to life and health. That makes you a domestic enemy of the U.S. Constitution.
Jason Sonenshein,
I am not sure what to say about a person who does not realize that if they see a person who’s life or health they can see and does nothing then they are a tyrant. If that person urges another to deprive themselves or others of their right to health and life then they are a tyrant. When they perpetrate the crime of depriving themselves or others of life and health then they are also a tyrant. As the Declaration of Independence states the right to life and health is a gift from God and should not be lightly taken or given up.
Beaming Visionary,
Christians fought against slavery and segregation. Many of the northern states did not have laws forbidding mixed marriages. Homosexuality is an action that you can change since I have known homosexuals that have children and people that are sexual abstinent. Race can not be changed. I hope you see the difference because your comparison is like comparing apples and rocks.
Now that’s just adorable! I find solace in the fact that you and maybe three other people share this viewpoint.
Apostle:
Congratulations! You’ve sparked a new round of The Analogy Game! If you still think you’re right, feel free to leave a comment. We’ll have a discussion.
Oh, and Kerwin:
Words like “tyrant” exist so that we may decribe in just two syllables the truly heinous, violent, harsh people among us who do unconscionable things. Hitler and Pol Pot, for example, were tyrants. When you call gay people tyrants and their supporters Nazis, you rob the word of its meaning.
By your own definition, the following groups of people are also tyrants: gun sellers and manufacturers, tobacco companies and guys who own convenience stores, fast-food companies, tuna fishermen (mercury poisoning causes birth defects), and vinyard owners (vinyard = wine = alcohol = alcoholism).
These people are not Hitler. Not even close. Please find another word.
BV: Why do you keep repeating your exact same comments over and over? Is this your last desperate tactic to get more than 2 people to listen to you? Once again, posing an argument is not just mindlessly insulting your opponent, its actually arguing a point, and backing it up. Didn’t that “advanced education” you keep CLAIMING to have recieved teach you that? I guess not.
Marriage is a man and a woman. That’s all there is too it. That’s the way it will stay. If you libs think its a victory that this gay marriage ban was shot down, you’re all dumber than you sound on all of your echo chamber blogs. The only states that will/have pass same sex marriage number in about 4 at the most. This is fine by me, all the homosexuals and those that want to pamper them can move to those states and leave the real America alone.
BV: You look like a bigger dumbass every time you post. Only a lonely, uneducated moron in desperate need for attention would call everyone here bigots right after trashing Christians, right-wingers, and everyone else that disagrees with you. You are the bigot, intolerant hate-mongor, the true sign of a liberal. The irony behind you and CR’s disdain for this site is staggering, since its the platform for your own unrespected blogs. If you are so much smarter, try actually blogging about something instead of dedicating an entire site to whining about this one. Because once again BV, you are the only one who cares.
Maven,
“By your own definition, the following groups of people are also tyrants: gun sellers and manufacturers, tobacco companies and guys who own convenience stores, fast-food companies, tuna fishermen (mercury poisoning causes birth defects), and vinyard owners (vinyard = wine = alcohol = alcoholism).”
They could very well be tyrants but to determine that you have to decide if their cause is “noble”. Sexual gratification is not a noble cause. Tobacco companies are tyrants as pleasure is not a noble cause. Fast food, tuna fishermen, and vineyard owners have the we have to eat and drink going for them. Guns can be used in self defense which is a noble cause. That does not mean that these products should not be regulated. I believe the FDA regulates tuna and is talking about regulating portion sizes in restraints. Wine sales are regulated as far as the age of the purchaser. Gun sales are also regulated. In my opinion all of these need additional or reformed regulation in order to ensure the right of life and health of human beings. The Declaration of Independence states that it is the duty of the government to ensure the natural human right to life and health of it’s people. That is a goal that We the People should make sure our government strives to reach.
The definition I found on Princeton WordNet Search 2.1 is a person who uses power in a cruel way. That last I heard depriving human beings of their health or life for sexual gratification was considered cruel. I admit that modern liberal may not look at it that way but then they are weird.
I don’t think modern conservatives or anyone with even a basic understanding of logic looks at it that way, either. The only things the government is depriving gays of is the right to marry and all that comes with it.
In the interest of time, just give us a list of the three or four things you think are completely harmless to the people.
Note to everyone else: Is this place haunted by ghosts? Who is this Beaming Visionary/BV character you keep talking to? I’m so confused!
You obviously do not know what logic is all about. If I perform an action that I know has a high chance of causing human beings to get sick and die because I find that action sexually gratifying then I am either intentionally or negligently cruel. To dispute my premises you can find evidence that homosexuality is not a risk to life and health or you can find evidence the risk is taken for a noble cause. You can even find evidence that homosexuality it not significantly risky behavior though you will have to define significantly in order to do that. Evidence to back you up would be nice.
I find it interesting that you invoke the Declaration of Independence in your argument, considering its signers were rallying against an oppressive government that was constantly interfering in their business.
I really don’t need to provide you with any evidence, because I’m not arguing against the facts you cite; I’m arguing against your application of said facts.
People who engage in gay sex do so willingly, in spite of any risk that may be involved. Save for a few rapists or sadistic individuals who would knowingly spread disease, homosexuals are not predators. Everything they do, they do it knowingly, and, in this day and age, with full knowledge of the risk involved.
Let’s look at some analogies to explore this further:
Straight sex: There is also a risk of spreading disease via vaginal sex. While not as high as that associated with anal sex, there is still a considerable risk. Should we outlaw vaginal sex, or has the associated risk not crossed the risk threshold?
Couch potatodom: Say someone wants to sit on a couch for 16 hours a day, watch TV, and consume 50,000 calories worth of potato chips, candy, donuts, and soda. Within just a few months the person would be extremely obese and at a much higher risk for heart disease (Check out ‘Super Size Me’ for a similar situation). Should we then ban couches, TV, and junk food, or was this person sitting, watching, and eating for a noble cause?
The commonality among all of these situations is that the parties involved are entering into them willingly and without coercion. If you want to see a tyrannical government, look at the one you’re advocating, in which the state is constantly monitoring its citizens and eliminating the right to privacy. Which is abusing power: a nanny state that is always looking over your shoulder to make sure you’re not doing anything risky or untoward (depending on a subjective moral code, no less) or a nation in which you may do what you want so long as you don’t intentionally cause harm to others?
While I’m here, I’ll also argue that sex - straight or gay - provides a tremendous benefit. Sexual gratification has a wonderfully positive effect on the psyche and leads to a much happier society. Would you want to live in a world without sex? I know I wouldn’t.
CR,
You seem to miss the point. The government has the duty to protect the life and health of it’s people even from themselves. This is because no one lives in a vacuum and that is why AIDs which is passed by consent from one person to another is a social problem.
The government puts many laws and regulation into effect in order to regulate these social problems. They may choose to ignore a social problem as our behest but the should never encourage it. Homosexual marriages encourages homosexuality and therefore the spread of HIV/Aids.
Please provide a reliable study that shows that sex provides a significant benefit that is not explained by relationship benefits.
The question then becomes does the detriment outweigh the benefits. I doubt the answer is yes.
Heterosexuality is not much of a risk for passing HIV/Aids. It may be for passing other types of STD’s.
We could make homosexuality marriage legal and also make it illegal to have sex outside of marriage. Anyone with a STD would then be indicted for committing a crime and they would have to find evidence to exonerate them of the crime of having sex outside of marriage. That would probably wipe STD’s out after a short time. The problem with this solution is that there are other health risks associated with homosexuality.
Thanks for completely ignoring what I wrote and arguing against something else. Try again and get back to me.