I Thought The Left Loved Direct Democracy?

But, alas, like everything else, they only like it when it benefits them

Four organizations “dedicated to protecting the civil rights of gay and lesbian people” have filed a lawsuit seeking to prevent Californians from voting on an amendment to the California constitution that would define marriage as a one-man, one-woman union.

The suit, which was filed Friday on behalf of three voters and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union and Equality California, argues that “the rules for revising the California Constitution were not properly followed.”

So, these organizations do not like that Californians may outlaw by Constitutional amendment (something else they claim they love, till parts become inconvenient) gay marriage. So, they will play legal games to keep Californians from exercising the Right to vote. Wonderbar! I wonder if they will send out some folks dressed in brown shirts as well.

BTW, just for clarity, I could care less about the whole gay marriage issue. I do think that they should be allowed civil ceremonies, though, and think that the Federal congress should not pass laws, either. It is a State issue. I’m just amazed at the hypocrisy of people on the left who profess to love voting trying to stop people from doing just that.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

4 Responses to “I Thought The Left Loved Direct Democracy?”

  1. John Ryan says:

    Teach they just want to make sure that the rules for changing the Constitution are followed. You are not against following the rules are you ?

  2. […] William Teach is shocked, SHOCKED that the liberals who profess to love direct democracy so much feel so strongly about denying the will of the people, they’re headed to court to preserve California’s court-ordered homosex marriages against a constitutional amendment proposition. […]

  3. manbearpig says:

    Well I’m not from Cali, and I don’t claim to know what the State Constitution says, but can someone show me where in the US Constitution it says citizens have the “right to be married”.

    Personally, I could care less if Bob and Joe want to shack up and show their commitment to each other, just don’t do it in a “marriage”. I don’t know the legal definition of a marriage but I have always assumed that marriage in the truest sense of the word was a religious ceremony. And of course we have to keep church and state separate. I say if you want to be husband and husband fine, just don’t call it a “marriage”. Jim and Bill have every right to be as unhappy as the rest of us married folk.

  4. I’m not against following the rules, John. But, come one, you know deep in your heart that that is not what they are trying to do. I would say exactly the same thing if conservatives were trying to stop a vote on a constitutional amendment that would stop schools from teaching ID. Because they would be playing the same game.

    You are exactly right, mbp. If they want a civil union, I believe that should be allowed, regardless of sex. If 2 people love each other to that extent, let them have some legal standing. But, marriage as such is a religious thing.

Pirate's Cove