Comments on: Do Supreme Court marriage decisions make voting pointless?

By: Teddy S

Teddy S — Fri, 28 Jun 2013 20:05:15 +0000

Skipping dog u rock

By: Bruce Ross

Bruce Ross — Thu, 27 Jun 2013 23:51:45 +0000

“This is not a republic but a democracy.”

Did I write that? Meant the contrary, of course.

By: SkippingDog

SkippingDog — Thu, 27 Jun 2013 21:59:22 +0000

Matt was referring to Proposition 14, which was passed by a majority of voters in 1964 to overturn the Rumford Fair Housing Act passed into law by our legislature the year before.

It’s surprising that you would be unfamiliar with it, John, since it was supported by your old newspaper and groups like the John Birch Society.

Fortunately, it was quickly reversed by the California Supreme Court as a violation of the 14th Amendment, and that holding was later confirmed by the USSC for the same reason.

So, John, do you support housing discrimination on the basis of race?

By: Rug burn

Rug burn — Thu, 27 Jun 2013 21:21:28 +0000

All we need now is a prizm/Svenguard/Eavedrop secret IT database to track voting records so we can send IRS agents to take out the dissenters. Karl would be proud.

By: CalWatchdog

CalWatchdog — Thu, 27 Jun 2013 20:22:27 +0000

Matt: To what case are you referring?

— John Seiler

By: Matt Munson

Matt Munson — Thu, 27 Jun 2013 19:53:04 +0000

So just because the voters of California supported housing discrimination in 1964 it should of been the law in the land?

By: Mark Landsbaum

Mark Landsbaum — Thu, 27 Jun 2013 16:22:42 +0000

Excellent John: “That means any initiative now passed in the state is operative only if the sitting governor agrees with it.”

Reason #3,054 to leave California.

By the way, things are just peachy here in Texas. 🙂

At your service in Christ . . .

Mark

By: Eric

Eric — Thu, 27 Jun 2013 15:51:11 +0000

I’m also troubled by the non-defense tactic that Brown used (and that the Obama administration practiced to a lesser degree for DOMA), but I really don’t think it’s as bleak as you paint it. The reason that no other party could claim standing was also driven by the key fact that nobody was ever able to make a convincing argument to the court about who would be tangibly harmed if gays were allowed to marry. That gap, which was true for DOMA as well, was fundamental to the outcome. Sure, there was “harm to the institution of marriage”, etc, but it’s much harder to put a face on that than on the other side, where (in the DOMA case) they could actually put a dollar value on harm.

Same-sex couples will now marry in CA, and the US government will now recognize this as such, but the world will not end, and little of substance will change. This was a symbolic issue, sure, but did anyone think that there was a real question that prop 8 would be overturned anyway?

By: Teddy S

Teddy S — Thu, 27 Jun 2013 15:06:51 +0000

Funny how conservatives pretend to like the Constitution and just don’t like article 3 so much. Lmao!

By: Rex the Wonder Dog!

Rex the Wonder Dog! — Thu, 27 Jun 2013 05:53:42 +0000

Bruce nailed it, the majority cannot take away constitutionally protected rights. I, like probably the vast majority of Americans, was initially opposed to gay marriage, but changed my tune 5 years ago- gay people getting married does NOTHING to me, so good luck to them, welcome to marriage and the brain damage that comes with it.