Why Voting on Rights is a Lousy Idea: January 30 Marriage News Watch

[captcrais101]

There is a term for putting marriage to a popular vote. MOB RULE!! The only people who should be deciding this are those that are getting married.

[Abritishpanda]

Dude... Chuichupachichi... whatever your name is...

Y U WASTE ALL THAT SPACE WITH 4 GODDAMN FULL LENGTH COMMENTS WHEN YOU JUST NEEDED 1??? D:<

Okay... i'm slightly more calm now...

[Chuichupachichi]

I see gays are still against voting on gay marriage, ever since Prop 8 was passed in Ca. But gay marriage has never been legal & in Ca attempts to make it legal date back to 1975. Are we to believe that in the past it was Christians that wanted for gays to have an opportunity to marry, thus, Christians caused for gay marriage to be proposed on the ballots? Of course not. The fact is that it was gays whom first put gay marriage up for the vote in their attempts to legalize it. It was only because

[Chuichupachichi]

Prop 8 was going to be amended into the state constitution, which means that there would never be another chance to legalize gay marriage, that the gays suddenly began to argue that it can't be voted upon

In Ca, the Governor & the Attorney General conceded to the Plaintiffs. Their excuse was that the 14th amendment of the US Constitution was violated. But whether or not it was violated was supposed to be determined by the outcome of the trial, not predetermined

[Chuichupachichi]

If Prop 8 were a violation, then the job of the Attorney General was to prevent it from being on the ballot. Are we to believe that as soon as Ca finished voting in favor of Prop 8, then suddenly, the Attorney General had an epiphany & realized that its a violation?

The people of Ca passed Prop 8. Thus, the people must be the defendants in the trial. The 14th amendment specifically states that Americans have the right to legal representation. The people pay for, thus, continually retain the

[Chuichupachichi]

services of the Attorney General. However, the Attorney General refused to represent the people, claiming that the 14th was violated. Despite the fact that the 14th doesn't say anything whatsoever about gay marriage or any marriage. Thus, the Attorney General neglected to do what it does say within the 14th, for the sake of what the 14th doesn't say. The 14th amendment rights of the people of Ca were violated & the law of the Ca state constitution was also violated

[Chuichupachichi]

The state of Ca provided the people with the voting booths, the ballots, the propositions, the choices between yes or no & even the little "I voted" stickers. Then the people were made defendants for voting a particular way...thats "ENTRAPMENT"

Gays shouldn't support any of this destruction to the US & state of Ca Constitutions because its detrimental to ALL Americans

[Belove48]

@fromthehaven94, no, it said 59% support relationship recognition. It didn't say equality. Still, it's a step in the right direction.

[fromthehaven94]

Had to do a double take on what was mentioned at around 3:21. 59 percent? Texas? In favor of equality? Glad I was seated!

[Lorenmcdee]

The percentage of people who support equal rights, and the percentage of people who supports equal rights that actually VOTE are two very different numbers. The simple fact that we have a high percentage of supporters means nothing if people who support us don't vote. Rights shouldn't be voted on in the first place.

[Belove48]

@booker1959, I dont want my rights voted on regardless of what the majority thinks. Would you truly be ok with me voting on your marriage?

[Belove48]

@serafine666, civil rights should never be put to a vote. Are you ok with me voting on your right to marriage?

[booker1959]

@Belove48 I agree that civil rights should not be subject to the whims of a current majority, but I do have to wonder: if the legislatures were refusing to legalize gay marriage and polls showed the public overwhelmingly in favor of it, would you still oppose putting it to a vote of the people (since "civil rights should never be put to a vote") even if the result would be marriage equality?

[serafine666]

If the government desires the power to enforce a novel conception of what constitutes a "civil right", it cannot justly derive this power from anything but the consent of the governed. The only way to determine what the governed consents to is a popular vote. Ergo, the power to enforce the novel idea that homosexual marriage is a civil right is an unjust power unless derived from a popular vote. Otherwise, the statement of our governing philosophy is a dead letter without any force or meaning.

[AdamTh1]

Putting civil rights of others to a vote not only goes against the purpose of having a constitution, the people making that decision are "legal idiots." 99+% of them have never been to law school and don't have a clue how constitutional law is supposed to work.

Their motivation for voting for/against is usually "This is the fastest way to deal with the problem, then I don't have to think about those people anymore."

[booker1959]

@AdamTh1 "Putting civil rights of others to a vote...goes against the purpose of having a constitution." I don't know where you live or how things work there; in my state (California) all constitutional amendments and revisions have to be approved by popular vote. I think it's the way in most states, isn't it?

[GodsSonJasonJ]

Inspiring, although sad that equal civil rights is even a debate needed to have!

[NobodysOffTheHook]

Christie's Chrazy, he is.

[JoeDiPasquale]

Wow, what a great update this was. Thank you, Matt and AFER!

[depfox]

So happy that Maine is moving towards equality another great video.