Reuters: Idiots or just your average lefties?

This article by Peter Henderson for Reuters has to be one of the lamest scare attempts I have seen in a while.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE4AN0WC20081124

It also shows exactly how stupid most people including so-called law professors, who you would think should know better.

California‘s gay marriage ban could open the door to legal discrimination against unpopular groups if the state Supreme Court allows the voter-approved measure to stand, blacks, Latinos, Asians and other minorities said”

The minorities that said that are dumb. Plain and simple and it isn’t racism that is saying that it is reason. It is as stupid as Whoopie Goldberg’s assertion on the View that Supreme Court Justices who favor original intent could lead to slavery again.

But the stupidity of the women on The View gets better. (I know this is a side note to the real story but this is too good to pass up since these harpies have such a huge audience who hang on every word of these nitwits like it were gospel. Mocking them at every turn is a must.) Check out this stupidity.

http://www.conservativepunk.com/articles/1808/

It is people like the ones on The View who mouth off about the legal aspects of Prop8 and other social areas and they have NO CLUE what they are talking about.

Anyway back to the article at hand…

Here it is so-called “legal scholars”: “Legal scholars say the measure, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman, breaks new ground by limiting the courts’ ability to protect minorities.”

That’s funny. How is taking a definition which has been the same for thousands of years and simply saying, “Yes, this is the way we will be continuing to define it” breaking new ground? How does this limit the court’s ability to protect minorities? Will it mean the court cannot protect black people who are denied housing? Does it mean the court will not be able to protect Latinos who are denied jobs? Does it mean the court cannot protect women who are denied the right to vote?

It never says how it merely tries to frighten everyone with quotes like this: “They could take away any right from any group,” said University of Southern California Law Professor David Cruz, who filed a brief in favor of gay marriage in an earlier case.

Notice how Cruz never says how that could happen, and notice too that three paragraphs later Cruz basically admits that what he says isn’t true: “It is unlikely that relatively liberal California would approve restrictions on racial and religious minorities, especially ones that clash with the protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, Cruz and others say.”

Notice as well a point that is hidden in that last sentence…”protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.” This is the crux of why this article is a lame scare attack with ZERO credibility. The 14th Amendment of the Constitution not only guaranteed ‘equal protection under the law” to all citizens it also incorporated the Bill of Rights to be applied to the States (before the 14th Amendment the Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal Government) so that the States could not deny equal protection to any citizen.

The point here is the freedoms guaranteed are those mentioned in the bill of rights…can any show me the right to marry in the Bill of Rights? Look long and hard and if you think its in there before you look, do me a favor and hold your breath while you look cause you are probably one of those people who thinks CO2 is a bad thing for our environment, and you should probably do your part. (Another side issue I know. Hey its my blog.)

Found it yet?

I’ll wait.

Keep looking.

Want a hint?

ITS NOT IN THERE.

There is no “right to marry” there is no right to any privileges from marriage, the very word privilege means it isn’t a right. Rights are inherent a privilege is granted. But that hasn’t stopped these nitwits from claiming otherwise.

From the Article again: “Indeed, a central argument in support of the gay marriage ban is that majority-vote constitutional amendments can change rights.”

No, it can’t. Any rights the citizens of California have now such as voting, redress from the courts or speech (as long as you are not right-wing on a collge campus or at least until the Democrats pass the Fairness Doctrine) CAN’T be taken away by anything the voters in CA do. Any other issue not guaranteed by the U.S. Constiution is a privilege, driving and state recognized Marriage for example.

So let’s look at this rationally…lefties may have to put the poo down and sit quietly. The people who want Gay Marriage want what? They say they want the same rights as Hetero couples. What do they mean by that? If they mean they want the right to visit their loved ones in the hospital or set up a will that honors their wishes when they die or gives tax breaks for being a couple…well CA already gave them that in Civil Unions. So what do they want?

They want everything their way. They want not only to be able to have all of the privileges of Civil Union but also to force the State and all its citizens to call that a marriage. They want to change the meaning of a word that has stood for one thing for thousands of years and make it mean what they want it to mean, which could be anything down the road (same-sex marriage is only the first step). They want to force other people to accept that denying them what they want is akin to putting blacks at the back of the bus, but in reality what they want is to call the any seat the backseat and then complain they can’t be up front.

This isn’t about Rights, it is about definitions. If you call a cow a horse it doesn’t mean it will run the Kentucky Derby. (There is a better quote I think by Lincoln about that, can anyone remember it?)

The activists who want same-sex marriage are also now acting like Germany’s Brownshirts, accosting old women, calling balcks who voted for prop8 “niggers”, and storming and disrupting churches. I am waiting for the Kristallnacht to happen, where all of the windows of those who had prop8 signs and all of the churches are broken…in the name of civil rights.

As long as media outlets like Reuters gives these idiots cover I figure it won’t be long.

Advertisements

One Response to “Reuters: Idiots or just your average lefties?”

  1. I agree. These women have no idea what they’re talking about. They’re looking for a cat-fight. On national TV.
    HA!
    experiimental.wordpress.com

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: