Gay Patriot Header Image

Gay Left Opposes Democracy in Massachusetts

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 8:08 pm - January 6, 2006.
Filed under: Gay Marriage,Liberals

Two months ago, my blog-league noted how Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF), called state referenda defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman “unfair, bordering on immoral elections.” Foreman is not the only gay leader opposed to allowing Americans to vote on the definition of marriage. Earlier this week, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), a New England gay adocacy group, filed a lawsuit against Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly “in an effort to block a proposed ballot issue that would amend the state Constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage.

Gary Buseck, GLAD’s Legal Director, claims the Massachusetts “constitution says there can be no citizen-initiated constitutional amendment that `relates to the reversal of a judicial decision.’

While one gay activist is attempting to prevent Massachusetts citizens from voting on the definition of marriage — just as citizens have done in fifteen states over the past two years — a prominent gay politician is upset that social conservatives want the people to decide this issue. Bay State Democratic U.S. Congressman Barney Frank called backers of the ballot initiative “disturbers of the civic peace,” claiming, “they’re the ones who want to stir it up. This is a non-issue in Massachusetts.

If it’s such an non-issue, Frank shouldn’t worry too much about it being put on the ballot. If this referendum disturbs what Frank calls, “social peace in Massachusetts,” Bay State voters would likely vote it down.

Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Insitute which gathered the signatures to put the referendum on the state’s ballot, doesn’t think his group is disturbing the social peace. He said signers just wanted “opportunity to vote on the definition of marriage. Odd that Mr. Frank is accusing Mineau’s group of promoting a “divisive” initiative. They want the people to decide an issue whereas Frank supports the Goodridge decision where, by judicial fiat, the state’s Supreme Judicial Court redefined a centuries-old institution.

While Frank sees an “angry” fight ahead if this issue makes the Bay State’s 2008 ballot, I see instead the opportunity for advocates of gay marriage to make their case to Massachusetts voters, to persuade them of the merits of extending the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples. Perhaps Frank sees an angry debate because he expects these advocates to campaign against this initiative as they have campaigned against past referenda in other states, usually not by defending the notion of gay marriage, but by attacking those opposed to it. That tactic would certainly lead to an angry debate.

But, it doesn’t have to be an angry campaign. A referendum can — and should — provide citizens the opportunity to debate important issues such as this. By placing it on the ballot, opponents of gay marriage actually give advocates a better chance to make their case to citizens who would rather not discuss the topic. They should use the campaign against the referendum to make clear their case for gay marraige.

I wonder that someone who has served in Congress so long would be upset that a state referendum might be “divisive.” Democracy, by its very nature, is divisive in that it provides a forum for representatives of different viewpoints. Does Mr. Frank want to replace the “divisive” debates he has seen — and participated in — over the past quarter century (that he has served in Congress) with the unanimous votes of the Supreme Soviet or the subservience of Iran’s Majlis?

Unlike the former Soviet Union and the Islamic Republic of Iran, we attempt to resolve divisive issues through debate and democratic means. The only way to avoid the oftentimes divisive resolution of such issues is for an unelected elite to determine our priorities.

The democratic process may not necessarily mean defeat for gay marraige in Massachusetts. There are signs that the people there have begun to change their mind on the issue and have reached a different conclusion on gay marriage than have voters in other states. In September, the state legislature voted down a proposal to overturn the Goodridge decision mandating gay marriage. Given the small size of Massachusetts’ legislative districts, Bay State legislators are much closer to their constituents than those in other states. Surely these elected officials listened to their fellow citizens before voting on this controversial issue. They wouldn’t likely oppose a bill their constituents supported.

And that’s not the only sign that Massachusetts’ citizens support gay marraige. Advocates of gay marriage cite polls showing that a majority of Bay State citizens don’t want to see Goodridge overturned. Thus, advocates should welcome this referendum as it would settle this issue for once and for all (at least in Massachusetts). A debate may be divisive, but a popular vote against the initiative would be a severe blow to social conservatives. It would be the first time voters in any state had defeated a proposal upholding the traditional definition of marriage.

It’s unfortunate that advocates of gay marriage are opposed to the proposed referendum in the Bay State. It would provide both a forum for a serious debate on this important social issue and an opportunity to slow the momentum of the opponents of gay marriage.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

Share

29 Comments

  1. Dan… your excellent post reveals again what is come to define American Liberals. While they give lip-service to freedom and democracy, the only thing that really drives them is their own power and mandating their beliefs on others through government control.

    Comment by GayPatriot — January 6, 2006 @ 8:11 pm - January 6, 2006

  2. Hey, they’re just following the law. If the state constitution says a citizen petition cannot override decision from the state Supreme Court then opponents of gay marriage can either try the legislature again or quit wasting time/money and admit the world did not end and probably won’t and move on to more important issues.

    Comment by The Angry Fag — January 6, 2006 @ 8:54 pm - January 6, 2006

  3. GPW, I think you hit on what is the most important point; if this thing goes to the ballot, there’s a very good chance it would lose — but that’s with conditions as they are now.

    Really, Frank may be smarter than he looks; he knows full well that if foul-mouthed morons like Matt Foreman go spew their usual garbage, the voters will rethink the whole thing and may turn out in greater numbers to oppose it.

    Indeed, that’s what happened here in Texas. We were actually doing an OK job until Glenn Maxey, Democratic Party puppet, got the bright idea to try telling everyone that the state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage would ban every form of marriage in Texas — a legal opinion not supported by anyone with more than half a brain cell — and cynically targeted senior citizens with his messaging in the hopes of confusing them and keeping them away from the polls. To say this whipped people into a fury was a gross understatement; people started turning out in droves to support the amendment, far more than had previously.

    Frank’s argument, in that light, is along the same lines of Patrick Guerreiro’s continual pleas for gay conservatives to “come out” and show the world that gays are not all lying, sex-crazed moonbat fanatics. I have to admit it gives me enormous pleasure to see people who have pandered to and cultivated those very same moonbats for support coming to the realization that doing so has completely poisoned the issue; however, if they think I’m going to soil my reputation by making excuses for their short-sightedness and poor decisions, they’ve got another thing coming.

    Let there be a bloodletting and purge of the abortionists, the sex addicts, and the political buttlickers first; then and only then will I and others step forward.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 6, 2006 @ 9:14 pm - January 6, 2006

  4. Actually, Angry in #2, I think GLAD is grasping at straws, unless of course, the language of the proposed referendum makes direct reference to the case. I would dare say the provision they reference refers to court cases between individuals not ones interpreting the state constitution.

    What’s really unfortunate about this is that the same Supreme Court that issues the Goodridge decision may be adjudicating this issue. If would be the height of judicial arrogance if this court claimed that the state constitution prevented citizens from exercising their rights in the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment to “petition the Government for a redress of grievances” particularly the grievances they have against that very court.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — January 6, 2006 @ 9:17 pm - January 6, 2006

  5. If the state constitution says a citizen petition cannot override decision from the state Supreme Court then opponents of gay marriage can either try the legislature again or quit wasting time/money and admit the world did not end and probably won’t and move on to more important issues.

    Ah, but you see, the petition is to amend the State Constitution to block gay marriage; it is not to amend the state constitution to block Goodrich.

    Again, give the right wing some credit; they know that the irrational hatemongers that make up the gay left won’t think through their arguments before spewing their usual vomitus. What the gay left is trying to argue is that the voters don’t have the right to change the state constitution; again, their usual tactic of telling lies about the situation in an attempt to swing the uninformed.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 6, 2006 @ 9:20 pm - January 6, 2006

  6. Goodrich granted the rights of marriage onto same-sex couples. This amendment takes that away. Thus the amendment is an attempt to reverse the state Supreme Court.

    You arguement is akin to saying that an amendment does seeks to ban desgregation in schools, but does not reverse Brown v. Board of Ed.

    Comment by The Angry Fag — January 6, 2006 @ 9:24 pm - January 6, 2006

  7. Angry in #6, that would all depend on the language of the constitutional provision in question.

    Given that GLAD is (obviously) offering an interpretation of the provision most favorable to its goals, I daresay that group is overstating its reach. And even if the provision is broader than I assume it is, such a provision would likely violate the clause of the federal constitution’s First Amendment which I cite above (comment #4).

    ND30 got it right in #5.

    I’m almost certain that this provision prevents citizens from petitioning for Bills of Attainder, “legislative acts,” according to my Black’s Law Dictionary, which “apply to named individuals or easily ascertainable members of a group in such as way as to inflict punishment on them without a judicial trial.”

    I simply can’t believe a state constitution would prevent its citizens from overturning the state Supreme Court. I have, however, downloaded their complaint (from their website) and will review it as time permits.

    In the release, however, GLAD notes that the “forbidden” citizen petitions are those which relate “to the judiciary, including one relating to the reversal of a judicial decision.” It appears thus that the provision in question prohibits Petitions akin to Bills of Attainder. Thus, they are stretching its meaning to suit their purposes.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — January 6, 2006 @ 9:55 pm - January 6, 2006

  8. Dan – as often happens, I agree with your analysis.

    It certainly looks like Barney Frank and GLAD want to run from all democratic debate over gay marriage – rather than engaging the debate enthusiastically and winning it, as they ought to.

    #3 – NDT – Problem is, who is going to do the purge you call for, unless you step forward first to do it? (Chicken – egg problem)

    Comment by Calarato — January 7, 2006 @ 12:16 am - January 7, 2006

  9. I think it’s not a good idea to put an unpopular minority up to a vote. If you tried to overturn Brown v Board of Ed by putting it up to a referendum, it would have passed. Now integration is a non-issue.

    I agree that the Democrats you cite give very weak arguments. Dale Carpenter is much better on that score – in my opinion, he’s the most effective debater on this issue for the pro-gay marriage side.

    Comment by Eva Young — January 7, 2006 @ 2:54 am - January 7, 2006

  10. Gay marriage may be the right policy. but the American public is honestly not ready for it. The younger generation supports it, however we have to wait for attrition of the older generation to die off.

    Comment by Matt Munson — January 7, 2006 @ 4:28 am - January 7, 2006

  11. Indeed, that’s what happened here in Texas. We were actually doing an OK job until Glenn Maxey, Democratic Party puppet, got the bright idea to try telling everyone that the state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage would ban every form of marriage in Texas — a legal opinion not supported by anyone with more than half a brain cell — and cynically targeted senior citizens with his messaging in the hopes of confusing them and keeping them away from the polls. To say this whipped people into a fury was a gross understatement; people started turning out in droves to support the amendment, far more than had previously.-

    NDT, you know Texas much better than I ever could, but I think that amendmend would have passed easily no matter what. If an amendment can pass in Michigan, and a less restrictive amendment in Oregon, then Texas is a breeze.

    I do agree, in a way, that the people should vote. And they probably will vote. Unfortunately, our noble intentions can mask the steep odds gays face on the ballot even in Massachusetts. Keep in mind the Mormon Church, the Catholic Church, James Dobson will flood more money into Massachusetts than we can imagine. These anti-gay people are also expert at confusing voters as to what they vote on. The amendment will, I think, ban gay marriage and civil unions. Most people think the amendment is only marriage.

    I hope people will at least consider donating to Massequality.

    Comment by Carl — January 7, 2006 @ 5:40 am - January 7, 2006

  12. I am not that big a fan of public referendums. I think you vote your issues by voting into your legislature representatives who are in line with your positions, and then you lobby your legislature to support/oppose positions.

    In the end I think the gay marriage issue will be much less divisive, if the case is made to the people and accomplished through the legislative proccess than done through the courts.

    Going through the legislatures will take a lot more patience, but it will be a better result in the long run.

    Comment by Just Me — January 7, 2006 @ 10:28 am - January 7, 2006

  13. U.S. Congressman Barney Frank called backers of the ballot initiative “disturbers of the civic peace,” claiming, “they’re the ones who want to stir it up. This is a non-issue in Massachusetts.”

    Ironic, isn’t it? The same Democrat Left that goes into conniption fits that Bush’s “Imperialist Presidency” is “usurping the power of legislature” by wiretapping phone calls to Al Qaeda — supports the idea of an Imperial Judiciary that usurps the people’s power to define marriage (Massachussetts) or give poor black kids the opportunity to go to better schools (Florida).

    I thought “democracy” meant rule by the people. Ironic that the last thing a modern “Democrat” wants is for people to be allowed to govern themselves.

    Comment by V the K — January 7, 2006 @ 10:46 am - January 7, 2006

  14. Seen this?

    Comment by rightwingprof — January 7, 2006 @ 1:57 pm - January 7, 2006

  15. If the state constitution says a citizen petition cannot override decision from the state Supreme Court then opponents of gay marriage can either try the legislature again or quit wasting time/money and admit the world did not end and probably won’t and move on to more important issues.

    As far as I understand this one avenue for amendment of the Commonwealth’s constitution. It will be interesting to see how this plays out because if advocates of the referendum lose in their state a clever lawyer might be able to make a case that this violates the US Constitution. We’ll see…

    Comment by Average Gay Joe — January 7, 2006 @ 7:08 pm - January 7, 2006

  16. NDT, you know Texas much better than I ever could, but I think that amendmend would have passed easily no matter what. If an amendment can pass in Michigan, and a less restrictive amendment in Oregon, then Texas is a breeze.

    There were a few points we had going for us that were very different than the example you cited, Carl.

    — The fact that this was a midterm constitutional amendment election. Because of the way the Texas Constitution is written, many mundane items require it to be amended to be passed into law. Since the Legislature meets only once every two years, we have these elections in November of the off year to pass them; usually, they’re single-digit turnout.

    — Because this amendment was like something wet and vaguely disgusting to both political parties; only the extreme party moonbats wanted to make an issue of it. As a result, neither party wanted to be seen kowtowing to that, and both parties kept relatively quiet.

    — The extreme overconfidence of the wingnuts. They were so certain they had this won, they hardly bothered campaigning for it for several months.

    As a result, the political strategy for combating it was “low and slow”; make sure the gay community was ready to vote against it, have frank conversations with our straight friends, and, most importantly, keep from stirring up the wingnuts.

    Unfortunately, the insane moonbats thought they’d use it as a smear tactic, got their puppet Maxey to spread misinformation, and blammo, the wingnuts were roused and running. Before that, there hadn’t really been an organized get-out-the-wingnuts campaign; after that, UGH.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 8, 2006 @ 2:57 pm - January 8, 2006

  17. I think it’s not a good idea to put an unpopular minority up to a vote. If you tried to overturn Brown v Board of Ed by putting it up to a referendum, it would have passed. Now integration is a non-issue.

    Well, first off, there’s a difference between something not being a good idea and it being illegal.

    Second off, “unpopular minority” is a very imprecise term. Polygamists, pedophiles, and practitioners of incest are unpopular minorities as well, but I somehow don’t see the same arguments being trotted out against referendums to deny their rights.

    Finally, by 1954, I do not believe a national referendum to overturn Brown v. BOE would have succeeded, if for no other reason than the fact that most states, especially the Northern states, had already ended de jure segregation. What people forget is that the aggregate voting power of the Southern states is a relatively recent phenomenon, driven by migration to greater economic opportunity and preferred climates.

    The simple problem here is that we need to be a popular minority, not an unpopular one. The question then becomes how to get that way.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 8, 2006 @ 3:18 pm - January 8, 2006

  18. anuary 04, 2006
    Gay republicans organize in Maine
    IN THE WAKE OF SUCCESSFUL ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LEGISLATION, ORGANIZERS SAY IT WAS TIME TO ESTABLISH THE STATE’S FIRST LOG CABIN REPUBLICAN CHAPTER

    A group of gay republicans in Maine announced last week that they have established the state’s first chapter of the Log Cabin Republicans (LCR), a national group of activists with chapters in most states including all other New England states.

    In a press advisory mailed this week, the group, which is based in Portland, declared, “Fair-minded Republicans in Maine have formed a new vehicle to advance the cause of equal rights for gay and lesbian Americans and build a more inclusive GOP. Log Cabin Republicans of Maine, a new provisional chapter of the national organization serves as the leading voice for fairness, inclusion and tolerance in the GOP. Republican activists from across the state have come together to create this organization to show that the Republican Party is a big tent party.”

    According to Steven Scharf, the groups’s secretary, treasurer and spokesperson, the Maine LCR has been organized by a number of well-known gay republicans in Maine including Noah Hincks, the former chair of Portland Outright. Hincks serves as the group’s president.

    “With the defeat of Question 1, the fair-minded citizens of Maine have an unprecedented opportunity to work together to build a stronger and more inclusive state with lower taxes, smaller government and equal rights for all,” said Hincks, referring to the recent ballot measure that made Maine the last state in New England to keep an anti-discrimination law on the books. “Log Cabin is excited about this important opportunity to work within the Republican Party and the gay and lesbian community.”

    More:
    http://www.innewsweekly.com/innews/?class_code=Ne&article_code=1089&PHPSESSID=39bd0d806da64b8f39bab666c854338d

    Comment by Ian — January 8, 2006 @ 4:07 pm - January 8, 2006

  19. As gay people, why don’t you get on the side of other gays sometimes? You seem to regularly forget that while majority rules, it was specifically the intent of the framers of the constituion that the mob would not rule. Just because you don’t agree with the majority doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have the same rights the majority has. And frankly, yes, it is completely immoral for people in this country to put forth legislation and/or ballot initiatives to deny equal rights to a minority. Just because those states voted against gay marriage doesn’t make their actions right.

    What will be the response when the majority wants to start turning back other gains minorities (gay and otherwise) in this country have gained over the years to help put everyone on an equl footing? heck, we might as well just go back and repeal the equal protection clause of the Constitution. With all the economic and technological advances in the last several decades, you’d hope that our societal development would move forward too. Sad truth is, we’re dirfting backwards in that regard.

    Comment by Kevin — January 8, 2006 @ 7:26 pm - January 8, 2006

  20. #19
    Kevin,
    Once again you show your love affair with the slippery slope argument. Somehow, a state ballot initiative regarding gay marriage will eventually lead to repealing the 14th amendment to the Constitution.

    Comment by John — January 8, 2006 @ 11:53 pm - January 8, 2006

  21. Just because you don’t agree with the majority doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have the same rights the majority has. And frankly, yes, it is completely immoral for people in this country to put forth legislation and/or ballot initiatives to deny equal rights to a minority. Just because those states voted against gay marriage doesn’t make their actions right.

    Kevin, you exemplify the problem that gay leftists have — zero concept of what is and isn’t a constitutional right.

    What you don’t understand is that your making “marriage” a Constitutional right means that denying it to polygamists, incest practitioners, and underage individuals is unconstitutional.

    And frankly, as long as you and your fellow “gay activists” want to argue that people shouldn’t be allowed to vote on whether or not to amend their state or the Federal Constitution, gays will continue to lose rights — because you have made gay rights that are not constitutionally-guaranteed a reason to deny rights that are to others.

    Finally, just because you and I have the same sexual orientation is no reason for me to stand with your irrational hatred of voters and your willingness to deny them their constitutional right to vote.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 9, 2006 @ 11:03 am - January 9, 2006

  22. Speaking of which, now that polygamists are suing for marriage rights based on the exact same grounds as same-sex couples (vis-Instapundit), are the people who attacked me for pointing out that this was invevitable going to apologize?

    Comment by V the K — January 13, 2006 @ 11:47 am - January 13, 2006

  23. How odd. Washington Blade has this up for their current Blogwatch…even though you wrote this weeks ago.

    Comment by Carl — January 17, 2006 @ 3:03 am - January 17, 2006

  24. What a good many people do not realize is that our government was not founded to be a democracy from the very beginning. When the constitution was finally agreed upon by the writers, and they came out of the building, one was asked, “Do we have a democracy or a monarchy” the answer was given, “Neither, sir, but a republic … if you can keep it.” Some people refer to our government as a constituional democratic republic. It was never intended that the people would have a popular vote on what was to be the law of the land. Certainly, there was no intention that the majority of people should be able to vote on what individual freedoms any minority might have. The government then proceeded to endorse slavery. And it took a terrible civil war and the Supreme Court to grant equality to African Americans. Just exactly what will it take to grant equality to gay Americans? Our government was set up that the people would elect representatives to make laws (the legislature), the administration to enforce the laws (the presidency) and the supreme court (the judicary) to decide if the laws passed and the actions of the president were constitutional or not,
    (the balance of powers). No where was the people given the power to directly vote their opinions and enforce them on others. Yes, the democratic way would be to let the people vote on the issue. BUT WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY!!!! We are a republic … but following the views of many above, we are about to lose it. Think twice before you throw away what we have established in this land. You may live to regret it.

    Comment by Horace Kirkman — January 17, 2006 @ 4:01 am - January 17, 2006

  25. I am a rare breed. I am an African-American, Conservative gay man from Mississippi. Because of this I believe I may have a different take on this “rights by referendum” policy that so many here seem to endorse. It concerns me deeply that so many people here believe that civil rights should be up for popular vote. I would be willing to bet that most of you are white and are unfamiliar with having had your basic rights held hostage by the majority. If we hadn’t had “activist” judges back in the 60’s, it’s very possible that I wouldn’t be able to vote in my home state to this day. If it hadn’t been for these same judges my brother wouldn’t have been able to marry his latina wife. I am a true patriot. I am a veteran of Operation Desert Storm. I am a Conservative and because of that I value the constitution and realize that it is the job of the courts to make sure that the laws are not unconstitutional. It is the courts, not the legislature or the people, who have traditionally protected the rights of minorities from the biases of the majority. Our country and our Constitution were brilliantly framed by our founding Fathers to do just that. I think this whole Judicial bashing phenomenon that’s going on is very dangerous and is nothing more than a shameful political maneuver. I don’t believe any true Conservative would justify such manipulation of our sacred documents to push a political agenda. Before we go promoting the “rights by popular vote” strategy, spend a little time in the back of the bus, as my parents did. Spend a little time locked out of the voting booth. Then call those judges who gave them these rights “activist judges”. Civil rights and human rights should never be open to majority vote. It’s not Conservative and it’s definitely not American.

    Comment by Markus — January 17, 2006 @ 2:13 pm - January 17, 2006

  26. Thank you Horace. I think you said what I was trying to get across, only more eloquently. You are absolutely right about the founding of our country. Many people need to do some more homework before they call us a democracy and endorse popular vote to decide every issue.

    Comment by Markus — January 17, 2006 @ 2:21 pm - January 17, 2006

  27. Thank you Horace. I think you said what I was trying to get across, only more eloquently. You are absolutely right about the founding of our country. Many people need to do some more homework before they call us a democracy and endorse popular vote to decide every issue. I can’t think of a single civil right granted to a minority that originated in the legislature or by referendum. The Emancipation Proclamation was one of the few non judicial civil rights promotions, along with the integration of the military, but both of these advancements were by Executive Order and were not legislative or through referenda. That may be a petty fact for those who’s rights would have remained the same with or without those edicts but to those of us who now have freedom and civil rights because of them they’re not petty at all.

    Comment by Markus — January 17, 2006 @ 2:28 pm - January 17, 2006

  28. Do not confuse majoritarianism with democracy. Equal protection under law is the foundation of democracy. Voting away equal protection through a majoritarian vote on minority human rights is never democracy.

    Comment by Gay Rights — January 17, 2006 @ 8:05 pm - January 17, 2006

  29. North Dallas Thirty, I find it disturbing that you have twice, in this discussion alone, equated homosexuality with pedophilia, polygamy and incest. If you, as a gay person, don’t know the differences between these things and homosexuality then I think you are hopelessly diluded as to what sexual orientation. This would certainly put a lot of your ignorant rantings into perspective. For you to claim that those of us who see the Constitution as a sacred living document that in EVERY case bestowes, rather than limits, rights are “gay leftists” who have “zero understanding of what is a Constitutional right” is absurd and further demonstrates your ignorance. You have very ignorantly confused “inalienable” rights with “constitutional” rights. Inalienable rights are just that, except in the cases of imprisonment and execution. Constitutional rights have never been confused, outside of your mind, to grant blanket civil rights to law breakers such as pedophiles, polygamists and incest practitioners. For you to make this correlation is frightening and very much in line with the wingnuts’ propaganda that has shamed the true Conservative movement.

    I would be interested in hearing your opinion on the African-American civil rights movement and the role of the courts in advancing those rights. Do you believe that these rights were improperly bestowed by the courts and should have been put off until enough popular support could be mustered to give them through public referenda? I know for a fact that if that were the case I would still be drinking from the “colored” water fountain in my hometown in Mississippi.

    And don’t you dare try to paint me as some ultra liberal radical fairy. Every one of my arguments are strictly conservative, not neo-con, but truly CONSERVATIVE. GWB wouldn’t know a conservative doctrine if it came up and bit him in his big, overspending, fiscally out of control, big deficit, big centralized government, privacy intrusive, states rights overpowering ASS.

    Comment by Markus — January 18, 2006 @ 1:21 pm - January 18, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.