The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

Roxxxanne wrote:

It most certainly does not. Lincoln wasn't elected becasue he promised to free the slaves. Civil rights for African-Americans were not achieved through referendum either. Nor were women's rights.

Could have fooled me. I was under the impression that the Civil Rights Acts were passed by Congress, and that the 19th and 24th amendments were ratified by majorities -- or super-majorities, as Joe calls them.

joefromchicago wrote:

More importantly, constitutional amendments are not enacted by majorities. They are enacted by supermajorities. It takes two-thirds of each house of congress and three-fourths of the states to ratify a constitutional amendment. In effect, that is a system of minority rule, since a minority is able to block any amendment (see, e.g., the equal rights amendment).

My point is that I believe a (sufficiently strong) popular mandate is the best defense of our rights that we have. The dichtonomy between "rights" and "majority vote" is a false one. Nobody has demonstrated that giving more power to unelected judges improves the protection of rights.

Thomas conveniently forgets Brown vs the Board of Education.

He can't possibly learn it from a book. I lived it. And being involved today in political activism, I continue to live it while Thomas pontificates from his ivory tower thousands of miles away.

My point is that I believe a (sufficiently strong) popular mandate is the best defense of our rights that we have. The dichtonomy between "rights" and "majority vote" is a false one. Nobody has demonstrated that giving more power to unelected judges improves the protection of rights.

Thomas wrote:

My point is that I believe a (sufficiently strong) popular mandate is the best defense of our rights that we have. The dichtonomy between "rights" and "majority vote" is a false one. Nobody has demonstrated that giving more power to unelected judges improves the protection of rights.

And my point is that, in the US, we don't entrust the defense of basic rights to majority votes.

Can you blame us?

I mean, haven't you seen the sorts of decisions our Majorities tend to make?

joefromchicago wrote:

And my point is that, in the US, we don't entrust the defense of basic rights to majority votes.

I know -- how silly of the United States.

Rival groups have been formed inside the Church of Scotland to do battle over gay "weddings". The Kirk's General Assembly is set to debate a proposal that ministers should be given official permission to conduct ceremonies to mark civil partnerships. But evangelical group Forward Together says the move would be a clear departure from the teaching of the Bible. Their stance prompted those on the other side of the debate to set up their own group, Affirmation Scotland.

[The secretary of Forward Together,] the Rev Ian Watson [..] rejected claims his stance was homophobic. "We are not rejecting homosexuals, we are saying active homosexual behaviour is sinful and is to be resisted."

As you see here, and I think this is maybe the most important prop [the photo] we'll have during the entire debate, my wife and I have been married 47 years. We have 20 kids and grandkids. I'm really proud to say that in the recorded history of our family, we've never had a divorce or any kind of homosexual relationship.

Although Republican Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum called gay marriage ``the greatest moral issue of our time,'' and Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, another Republican, stood before a large picture of his 20 children and grandchildren proclaiming that ``in the recorded history'' of his family there had never been ``any kind of homosexual relationship,'' the rhetoric was tamer this time.