Everyone seems really surprised at this, all I can say to that is: What the hell? Someone needs to go read Roberts rules of order and brush up on the fact that the whole democratic meeting and voting thing is for the RULE of the MAJORITY and merely the RIGHTS of the MINORITY. That is, a minority can bitch about something before the majority stuffs it back in their whiney assed faces. And at that point, the rule is a rule as made by the majority and the minority, having voiced their concerns can go home and pout, but everyone had a chance to speak on the issue. And I find it interesting that homosexual special rights groups speak the loudest and most often on the issue and yet the majority STILL voted that gay marriage isn't marriage.
Now they are all surprised that their supreme court which is supposed to enforce and uphold a proper interpretation of the constitution agrees with the change to the constitution. Except for one of them, who, in my opinion, needs to go back to school and take some classes on politics and how systems of governments work, based on his quote: "The rule the majority crafts today not only allows same-sex couples to be stripped of the right to marry that this court recognized [in last year's opinion], it places at risk the state constitutional rights of all disfavored minorities," Moreno wrote. "It weakens the status of our state Constitution as a bulwark of fundamental rights for minorities protected from the will of the majority." (taken from yahoo news)
He is complaining because the rule of the majority doesn't just give the minorities it disagrees with everything they want? He complains because a courts ruling before a constitutional change is different from after a constitutional change? Perhaps he'd like to bitch that women can vote, since, before that ammendment was made women were convicted of voting illegally and given jail time for it. When the constitution changes by the will of the people, that is now the new standard and what it was last year, or, hell, even ten minutes ago, doesn't matter unless everyone gets together to re-amend it out. Further, as noted by the head justice, it is not the job of the court to change the constitution, merely to uphold it.
Furthermore, for Moreno to say that the constitution (even California's alone) is a bulwark of fundamental rights for minorities is pure BS! That's not what it was for, a constitution is to protect the rights of the citizens (the majority of citizens) from it's own government, not to protect the minority from the majority.
Further amusing is the basic assumption that the constitution is in the wrong, from the tone I have read in Yahoo news, to the quotes, to the people who bitch the loudest on facebook, everyone starts with the assumption that it is wrong. Wait a minute!!! these are the same sources that told me that our morality is fluid, and changes to fit the opinion of the public, and stuff is okay now that wasn't fifty years ago because times have changed... well, here times change again and suddenly they all say "our morals are not fluid! just because everyone agrees with it doesn't make it right!" it's very revealing that the media has an agenda and when everyone disagrees they bitch and when everyone aggrees they use it as an ontological proof for their position. Pure hypocrisy!
How about everyone who doesn't live in california quits bitching about what california does as a state. They can hand out pez dispensers filled with PCP on every street corner in California for all I care, I don't live there. But if the majority votes for it, the minority can bitch, but the majority will rule, and the courts will not convict people for handing out Pez dispensers with PCP in them.
No comments:
Post a Comment