Polls & Marriage
It's time to take my pal Mr. G to task for the Florida Marriage Amendment. The amendment would do what is already on the Florida law books. Make marriage between same sex couples illegal.
Every poll I've seen on the concept of a marriage amendment in our state has shown a majority of the state supports the idea. I can give you Strategic Vision polls but liberals in our state just blow those off. I can also give you Equality Florida's (our own homegrown homosexual lobby) own poll from just over a year ago showing that 55% of Floridians support the idea of a marriage amendment, with an anticipated additional margin of 5 to 8% who would support the amendment over what the poll indicated.
Polls can be an interesting thing. Take the famous Supreme Court ruling on LOVING v. VIRGINIA The state of Virginia convicted the Loving couple for violating state's ban on interracial marriages. The Supreme Court ruled the conviction violated the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment. Interracial marriages became legal in the United States.
This is where polls come in.
... when the Supreme Court struck down the bans against interracial marriage in 1968 through Virginia vs. Loving, SEVENTY-TWO PERCENT of Americans were against interracial marriage. As a matter of fact, approval of interracial marriage in the US didn't cross the positive threshold until -- sweet God -- 1991.
Just because the polls are tipped to a certain side doesn't make it legal or morally right. Eventually, gay marriage will be legal in America. The harder the Christian Right pushes the issue the more the American public will get used to the idea of same sex marriages.
posted by Michael Hussey @ 5:25 PM
3 Comments
3 Comments:
I've never argued that polls mean a position is correct. What I did argue is that the majority in this state supports the marriage amendment.
The amendment prevent does much more than the current statutory laws; it protects marriage from an activist judiciary. And with the support of the majority of Floridians, we will solidify traditional marriage in our state.
And the Christian right is not the side that need "push" the issue. Again, the majority agrees with us.
And readers, I hope you catch the subtext here; that being Mr. Hussey 's comparison of the view of the majority here to racism.
Mr. Hussey can rant all he wants about Christians and the Right trying to shove their views down his throat, but when it comes to an issue he believes passionately about, he has no hesitation advocating that the majority view should be ignored for what he views as right.
The moment someone invokes the phrase "activist judge" or "activist judiciary", he forfeits any claim to legitimacy.
Judges apply the law. Appeals court judges review rulings and apply the law. The Supreme Court applies the Constitution, from whence cometh, and against which are tested, all laws.
Activism takes place within the populace, in the public square, if you will. Yet some idealogues like to promote the notion that judges bring their personal preferences and beliefs to the bench, law and Constitution be damned; amazingly, though, they only refer to judges as "activist" when they disagree with said judges' rulings.
And as for what the majority wants, Mark Twain's aside about "lies, damned lies, and statistics" would seem to apply here. As would the notion that we are a nation of laws, not mob-rule.
Finally, the very semantics of the legislation referred to by commenter Peer are deeply flawed. One need only ask this: in what way is any individual marriage threatened by the marriage of another couple, particularly another couple in another town, county, or for that matter, state?
Put more simply, legislating a defense of marriage implies that marriage needs defending. So I am asking: Against what?
Litbrit in the house. Damn, Peer just got served.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home