See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

1. Update on El Coyote and Marjorie Christofferson « Jane Q. Republican
2. $100 Donation In Support Of Proposition 8 Leads To Cops In Riot Gear
3. Democrats, Republicans and Hope and Change? : P.U.M.A
4. MishMashZone » Prop 8 Protests and El Coyote
5. Radio Vice Online » Tolerance on display in California - what a $100 donation can do
6. ‘Okie’ on the Lam » Blog Archive » Anti Prop-8 Activists Take No Prisioners — No Film At Eleven
7. ButAsForMe! » Are you proud of yourselves, anti-Prop. 8 mob?
8. The New Civil Rights Movement » Michelle Malkin Starts The Week Off “Right”
9. San Francisco Values Fly Right Out the Window
10. Gay Rage Part IV: Gay and Liberal “tolerance”? Not! « Mark Epstein
11. The Non-Religious Case Against Homosexuality | BobMaistros.com
12. Gay Musicians From Bay Area To Play Inauguration Parade « Goodtimepolitics
13. Why is it That Diversity Advocates Mandate Conformity? | Pirates! Man Your Women!
14. Webloggin » Anti Prop-8 Activists Take No Prisioners — No Film At Eleven
15. California Prop 8 donor maps showing up | Radio Vice Online
16. More Proof Tom Hanks is an Idiot | Mark's Soap Box

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #572618
   On December 16th, 2008 at 10:56 am, chapoutier said:

   Hate crimes are constitutional dangerous. How the heck can anyone read another persons mind, even if there is a previous pattern of behavior?
   GEES!

   Let me clarify this a bit. I do think it is entirely possible to know WHAT motivated a crime and still not think the motivation should have any bearing on the punishment.

2. #572645
   On December 16th, 2008 at 11:20 am, cheapseat said:

   face it people, folks f’ed up enough to be homosexual and or bisexual will never think they might be crazy. queers love to say it’s dna and they were born that way, but why is it that the majority of gays chose to be gay in their teens when they were seduced by a gay friend. it feels good, and they got a rep for being gay, so they were gay. just as the high school punch got a rep for being easy, so was easy. ellen disgraceful or madonna show how being cool gay gets you pubs within certain circles, but their guilt keeps pushing them to try to convince the majority it’s normal, so accept it. it’s not normal, get over it, and quit trying to make it normal through adoption, marriage, artificial insemination, and other means. you choose your life, don’t f up any other children to show how normal you really are.

3. #572686
   On December 16th, 2008 at 11:50 am, right4life said:

   Wow. Thanks for the two examples that have nothing to do with our country.

   don’t think it can happen hear?? please. you should know better…

   ELMIRA, NY, July 10, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Police arrested seven Christians who were praying prostrate and holding Bibles in a public park where a gay festival was just beginning, WorldNetDaily (WND) reports.

   36-year old born again street preacher Julian Raven and his group called the “Magnificent Seven” came to pray at Wisner Park in downtown Elmira the evening before the Southern Tier Pride Festival. After telling the police what they were planning to do, the Christian group was informed that if they went ahead, they would be arrested.

   When they tried to enter the public park, a female officer told them, “You’re not going to cross the street. You’re not going to enter the park and you’re not going to share your religion with anybody in this park.”

   Raven told the officer that she was violating the Constitution. For the first time in his life as a Christian, he said, “I felt now my freedom of speech is threatened or challenged. I was being told I could not share my religion with anybody in that park.”

   According to their own account, without making any sound or approaching any people, the seven entered the park while lifting up their Bibles, lay face down on the grass before the stage, and were promptly handcuffed by officers in front of homosexual onlookers.

   “We weren’t protesting or trying to get arrested,” Julian says in the Star Gazette. “We were there to pray for their sins. We planned to lay down, pray for a few minutes and leave peacefully. It wasn’t our idea to disrupt the rally. But if it happens, it’s out of our control.”

   Raven commented in WND, “We have a legal right to be at an event held in a public square. We’re not a hate group,” he said. “We’re Christians and we’re going to be there to pray.”

   Assistant Police Chief Mike Robertson said they were accused of “disturbing the peace” which includes “intent” to cause a public inconvenience, any “disturbance” of a meeting of persons, obstructing vehicular or pedestrian traffic, or taking part in “any act that serves no legitimate purpose,” WND reports.

   link

4. #572692
   On December 16th, 2008 at 11:53 am, right4life said:

   here’s a few more…

   Madison, Wisconsin. David Ott, a former homosexual, was arrested for a “hate crime” for sharing his testimony with a homosexual at a gas station. He faced a $10,000 fine and one year behind bars. Seven thousand dollars in legal fees later, [he] was ordered to attend re-education classes at the University of Wisconsin conducted by a lesbian.

   St. Petersburg, Florida. Five Christians including two pastors were arrested at a homosexual rally for stepping onto the public sidewalk instead staying caged in their officially designated “free speech zone.”

   Elmira, New York. The Elmira police arrested seven Christians for praying in a public park where a homosexual festival was getting started.

   Crystal Lake, Illinois. Two 16 year old girls are facing felony “hate crime” charges for the content of their flyers.

   Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Arlene Elshinnawy, a 75-year-old grandmother of three, and Linda Beckman, a 70-year-old grandmother of 10 (along with nine others), were arrested for sharing their faith on the public sidewalk.

   link

   you only THINK it can’t happen here…

5. #572882
   On December 16th, 2008 at 2:10 pm, AlohaGuy said:

   right4life said
   you only THINK it can’t happen here…

   Huh – where’d everybody go?

6. #573150
   On December 16th, 2008 at 5:06 pm, chapoutier said:

   Huh – where’d everybody go?

   I can only assume that I have convinced everyone that I am right and therefore have no need to post anymore.

7. #573280
   On December 16th, 2008 at 6:51 pm, L.N. Smithee said:

   chapoutier wrote:

   I have thoguht further about the issue and wish to amend my answer. With respect to consanguinity, there are I think obvious health reasons as to why brothers and sisters (and probably 1st cousins) should not marry or procreate. I would therefore think it reasonable to bar the marriage of kin.

   Well, I am glad that I spurred you to further thought, because on this issue it is common for people not to think.

   Fact #1: The California Supreme Court decision that temporarily legalized same-sex marriage in California (In re Marriage Cases) was styled after Perez v. Sharp (1948), the decision that legalized marriage to “Blacks” and “mulattoes,” Indians, and Asians by “White” people (Half-Mexican plaintiff Andrea Perez’s mother was white, thus making her “white” under CA law).

   Fact #2: The majority opinion in Perez summarily rejected the notion that children born from miscegenous marriage would be more likely to be diseased or disabled (thus being a burden on the state), saying that none of the voluminous data supplied by proponents of the status quo going back to the authors of the California Constitution nullified the fundamental right to marry the person of one’s own choice.

   Fact #3: One of the concurring judges’ opinions stated that racially-based marriage restrictions fail the “a clear and present danger” test set by previous SCOTUS decisions, and addressed arguments linking such prohibition on mixed marriage to laws against polygamy thusly (bold mine, citations deleted):

   The decisions upholding state statutes prohibiting polygamy come
   within an entirely different category. In Reynolds v. United
   States, 98 U.S. 145 [25 L.Ed. 244], marriage was said to be,
   “from its very nature a sacred obligation,” but the conviction
   was sustained upon the ground that polygamy {Page 742} violates
   “the principles upon which the government of the people, to a
   greater or less extent, rests.” Later, the court characterized
   the practice of polygamy as being “contrary to the spirit of
   Christianity and of the civilization which Christianity has
   produced in the Western world” (Church of Jesus Christ of L.D.S. v. United States, [...]; see Davis v. Beason, [...]) In effect, therefore, these cases rest upon the principle that the conduct which the legislation was designed to prevent constituted a clear and present danger to the well being of the nation and, for that reason, the statute did not violate constitutional
   guarantees.

   Now, I ask you sincerely: Do you believe that the above explanation for keeping polygamy illegal could be defended using that language in this day and age?

   Fact #4: Unlike the Justices in 1948, 2008’s In re Marriage Cases barely touches upon polygamy and incest, and does so in a cavalier manner. In Justice Ronald George’s 100+ page opinion, the oft-voiced concern that changing the nature of marriage as we have known it may lead to the unintended circumstance of opening the door to other proscribed marriage arrangements merits only this footnote (case references deleted, bold mine):

   “We emphasize that our conclusion that the constitutional right to marry properly must be interpreted to apply to gay individuals and gay couples does not mean that this constitutional right similarly must be understood to extend to polygamous or incestuous relationships. Past judicial decisions explain why our nation’s culture has considered the latter types of relationships inimical to the mutually supportive and healthy family relationships promoted by the constitutional right to marry.

   Although the historic disparagement of and discrimination against gay individuals and gay couples clearly is no longer constitutionally permissible, the state continues to have a strong and adequate justification for refusing to officially sanction polygamous or incestuous relationships because of their potentially detrimental effect on a sound family environment.”

   In his brilliant dissent, CA Supreme Court Justice Marvin Baxter respectfully laughs this off (bold mine):

   The bans on incestuous and polygamous marriages are ancient and deep-rooted, and, as the majority suggests, they are supported by strong considerations of social policy. Our society abhors such relationships, and the notion that our laws could not forever prohibit them seems preposterous. Yet here, the majority overturns, in abrupt fashion, an initiative statute confirming the equally deep-rooted assumption that marriage is a union of partners of the opposite sex. The majority does so by relying on its own assessment of contemporary community values, and by inserting in our Constitution an expanded definition of the right to marry that contravenes express statutory law.

   That approach creates the opportunity for further judicial extension of this perceived constitutional right into dangerous territory. Who can say that, in ten, fifteen, or twenty years, an activist court might not rely on the majority’s analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?

   In searching for this excerpt from Baxter’s dissent, I found it cut-and-pasted on a BDSM/Polyamory bulletin board with this comment: “…In their own way, [Baxter's] words hold out hope for us poly folk.”

   An earlier web search as I was gathering information for this post brought me to this Los Angeles Times blog debate between duelling pro-8 and no-8 attorneys. Get this — the Yes on 8 lawyer used the “slippery slope” argument, saying that the door has been opened despite Justice George’s fig leaf footnote, noted above. The No on 8 lawyer actually wrote this in response:

   Sixty years ago, when the California Supreme Court struck down our state’s ban on marriages by couples of different races, the dissent argued that bans on incest and polygamy would be next. Those who raised these alarmist concerns were wrong then and they are wrong now.

   HELLO, McFLY? They thought that would be next because nobody even IMAGINED the idea of homo marriage! You deny the “slippery slope” while you’re headed down the hill in an innertube!

8. #573590
   On December 17th, 2008 at 10:09 am, right4life said:

   I can only assume that I have convinced everyone that I am right and therefore have no need to post anymore.

   you were wrong about it not happening here….

9. #573769
   On December 17th, 2008 at 1:32 pm, chapoutier said:

   Without looking into each and every one of your poorly souced examples that you had simply cut and pasted from an article by Janet Folger (not really an unbaised source, heh?), I can at least say that I never said it happened in the US.

   I said that the two examples you gave did not.

   If these others you copied were so stellar, why didn’t you lead with them?