Cynical Nation

She may not live in fear, but the votes against gay marriage and civil unions will only give legitimacy to those bigots out there who feel righteous in their hate of homosexuals. Their empowerment causes me to live in fear. I'm not saying that gay marriage was the way to go but I do believe some people's hatreds will only be strenghened by the election outcome. I believe that many bigots voted yesterday and they were backed up by many equality minded folks who harbor no ill will to homosexuals. Because of the war I may have voted for Bush but I could not bring myself to vote in the same block as those bigots. When will we dump this stupid two-party system and adopt a system that allows the citizenry to fully express their core beliefs?

My only comment on the election is:

YEEEEEEEEE HAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

BN, I think you missed the bigger issue in all this.

It started with the Mass. SC deciding to tell the Mass. legislature what laws it should put on the state's books - a blatant violation of the separation powers.

The Mass. decision seemingly spurred other elected officials around the country to violate existing laws on their books by orchestrating gay marriages.

Unlike Barry, I am not pro-gay marriage. But I do support gay unions with all the same benefits ascribed to married couples.

In truth, the issue is no biggie to me one way or the other.

What I DO despise are activist judges who disregard laws or interpret them in such a way as to suspend all logic.

And I despise elected individuals who forget they are sworn to uphold laws within their states.

That is a major bone in my throat and a large reason why, after 28 active yeaqrs as a democrat, I left the party in 1995.

You may recall that polls after this spate of marriages showed a precipitious drop in support for gay marriage.

I would suggest that many were upset, as I was, at the activism of the Mass. SC as well as the officials.

We are a nation of laws.

Don't like them? Then work to get them changed.

But never decide that your view supercedes everyone else's because of the ostensible moral high ground you ascribe to it.

That is a sure recipe for disaster.

mal,

Like you I disagree with elected officials breaking laws to enforce their own personal views. I believe those who have done so, did so, hopefully, with full knowledge that they were breaking the law. They were being "dissidents," and as such should be charged with any laws they may have broken. Their electorate can decide whether or not they deserve to stay or return to office.

As for "activist judges who disregard laws or interpret them in such a way as to suspend all logic," read what Judge Marshall of the Mass. SC actually wrote:

**************************************************

The question before us is whether, consistent with the Mass. Constitution, the Commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry. We conclude that it may not. The Mass. Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens. In reaching our conclusion we have given full deference to the arguments made by the Commonwealth. But it has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples.

Our concern is with the Mass. Constitution as a charter of governance for every person properly within its reach. "our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code." Lawernce vs. Texas.

**************************************************

This was a real case before a real state supreme court. This was not an "activist judge" telling the state legislature what laws to write. There was no violation of the separation of powers here. The constitution was there before them. They had to decide how the case before them was to be settled under their constitution. Once they decided their constitution did not forbid gay marriage then it was necessary for them to allow the gay citizens of Mass. to get married if they so desired. Forbidding gays marriage was at that point unconstitutional.

I hear people say activist judges are writing laws or dictating what laws should be written. That simply is not what courts do. They decide cases. Here they decided the constitutionality of Mass. marriage law. That is fully within the bounds of the courts. The legislature had plenty of opportunity to rewrite this law while the case was pending. And even now, under their system they can push an amendment to their constitution if they so desire.

The Mass. SC did its job. Now as you say, " We are a nation of laws. Don't like them? Then work to get them changed." Don't claim "activist judge" when the decision doesn't go your way.