Thank You Keith Olbermann

You are a friend indeed:

Oh, and Keith, that lady you work with everyday and have been fawning over--yeah, Rachel Maddow. She's GAY! And i don't think she is THAT far back in your extended family.

More on the protests that have been going on in California:


fst said...

Sam, I'm torn over the whole thing.

On the one side I'm of the mind that no one's rights are being infringed. You've so often given me leeway in this forum, and please hear me out one more time.

In a literal mind as an American male I have the right that every other American male has: to legally marry a female in the US. Were I female I would have the right of every other female in the US: to marry a male. By that guideline no one's rights are being infringed, everyone has the same rights. I can marry any woman I want and so can you. Should you choose not to has no impact on me. It's a cold, logical look at it, but would probably, like it or not, hold up in court. We're treated equally.

My other mind -- my happier mind -- says that the Constitution (at least on the national scale) has always (always) settled on the rights of a oppressed minority. Woman's suffrage. The Emancipation Proclamation. The Voter's Rights act. Always has the Constitution sided with the suppressed minority.

But ask yourself, were any of those put to a popular vote (as Prop 8 was), would they have passed? No. They, too probably would have failed. Think on it before you answer.

I think Prop 8 goes to show just how bad true Democracy can be. It's mob rule.

A representational system -- one where agents are put up to support everyone's (inclusive) rights -- probably wouldn't have supported Prop 8. Why? Because it would have demolished a minority's rights, just as a popular vote would have quashed those of women and blacks would have been had the masses been allowed to speak.

It's not always best to let majority (or mob) rule.

I don't like it, but when you open your government up to mob rule the rights of the minority are going to be oppressed.

Sam said...

So, following your example Scott, one could say that that the 18th Amendment to our Constitution--Prohibition--is another example of flawed mob rule... but in that case, it was flawed mob rule that later overturned the first flaw, 13 years later. Not by the courts.

I think what is particularly bad about the Prop 8 installment of mob rule is that one side of the mob was particularly well-funded and produced all manner of propaganda that was not countered by the other side. And much of this was subsidized by the Morman Church, ostensibly upholding the sanctity of marriage(s).

My question is, will the courts consider the constitutionality of this new addition to California's constitution?

And also, if MY marriage is subject to the approval of mob rule, why isn't yours?

Fight the H8 in Your State