The “Whims of the Majority”

by lewwaters

In the February 1, 2012 debate over homosexual marriage rights in Washington State, State Senator Lisa Brown, a member of the Democrat majority gives her reasons for opposing allowing voters in the state to voice their views through a public vote.

I guess it escapes Ms. Brown that the homosexual marriage bill passed in the Senate and the House by a “whim of the majority” there?

Isn’t it funny how majority rule only counts when Democrats are the majority?

Footage from TVW, Washington State Public Affairs Network

52 Comments to “The “Whims of the Majority””

  1. Probably a moot point now in light of the recent 9th circuit court ruling.

  2. A 3 judge panel decision in the most overturned court in the land is not the final word, Tom.

  3. It seems to have been a fairly narrow decision. According to this article:

    it applies only to states that have separately granted full civil-union rights to gay couples. Not cure that applies in WA state (?)

  4. Precisely.

    But the left never wants to allow a vote when there’s a chance the people will block there agenda. With them, that’s all that matters; with a hack like Brown, it’s all about the veneer she wants to cover it with.

  5. As I understand it, Tom, it can also be appealed to the full 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and not left solely up to the 3 judge panel.

    What should be of concern, and few seem to be paying attention to, is how many of these cases reversing the clear will of the people are going to be tolerated before their is a backlash like never before?

  6. All I can suggest now after this vote, is that someone probably will come back with an initiative and once its certified, the voters will get harassed…

  7. Every now & then, homosexuals let it slip what they are really up to, and it has nothing to do with equal rights.

    For example, CNN suspends Roland Martin for making alleged homophobic remarks

    His “crime,” according to GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) he tweeted the following during the Super Bowl pertaining to an underwear ad, “If a dude at your Super Bowl party is hyped about David Beckham’s H&M underwear ad, smack the ish out of him!”

    The backlash is coming, it’s just a matter of when and from where.

  8. Actually, the 9th circuit court ruling means absolutely nothing to what’s going on in Washington State. It’s totally “apples & oranges”.

  9. That’s a good bit, Lew – the “whim of the majority” comparison.

    According to Lisa Brown, our representatives in the WA assembly, mostly unqualified dorks who haven’t amounted to anything in real life, have better judgment than you, so their decisions can’t be questioned by the rabble. This is the “elitist” attitude you’re always talking about.

    It’s ironic I have to make this observation because I think Lisa Brown IS qualified. She needs to explain to me what makes her so damn certain of herself.

  10. Sometimes, Martin, I feel people allow their emotions to overrule their qualifications and ability to see through their own smoke. Progressives tend to be ruled more by emotions than logic and I feel that is why they refuse to even look down the road at any possible ramifications this may bring.

    Maybe that is why not one person so far as given a logical reply to why, if two men may marry, they cannot be brothers or if one man to one woman is no longer valid, why can multiple people marry if they so choose.

    And yet, they keep promoting this as “Equal Rights” and “Equality for All.”

    I also don’t receive replies on just why this particular matter takes precedence when the state faces so many real problems, like the $1.5 Billion budget gap.

    Oh well, maybe if the Orcas win their struggle for civil rights and are no longer illegal slaves, they’ll petition to be permitted to marry sea gulls.

  11. “Progressives” make perfect “useful idiots” and “mind-numbed robots”.

  12. Lew, personally, I don’t care if 2 brothers marry, or polygammy, or even incest. The Law hardly cares, and science hardly cares, and if The People didn’t care then have at it. But… People do care, and right now Gay marriage is barely acceptable.

    However, I DO care if people marry buildings or seagulls – because The Law cares, and science cares.

  13. Well Martin, that’s the whole problem. While maybe you don’t care, authors of the bill and many supporters do. Such prohibitions are retained in this bill, so obviously, the law does care.

    Science seems to be at odds with itself over incest.

    So my question remains, why do homosexuals receive preferential treatment over other deviants? Why should they be granted rights to marry and others of questionable lifestyles not?

    As far as buildings, sea gulls or even Orcas, I agree. But then again I’m not the lawyer arguing the case on their behalf before a judge in California.

    Good thing there is no slippery slope, isn’t there 😉

  14. The way I see it, Liberals are always pushing for change (because they think it can be “better”) and Conservatives are applying the brakes (because it ain’t broke). I think the arrangement works.

  15. It used to work pretty well that way, Martin.

    But, moderates ousted conservatives and now we have liberals, marxists, progressives, socialists and a smattering of spineless moderates.

    And I think looking around the country we can see the results of fixing what ain’t broke.

  16. I don’t see any signs that “right now Gay marriage is barely acceptable”, Martin. Where do you get that from?

  17. Btw Martin, the “arrangement” would probably work if the Liberals would play by the rules once in a while instead of being just a bunch of dirty cutthroat bastards.

  18. The way things are going, one of these days publishing this blog will be considered a hate crime. I noticed that Matt Whathisname at the Columbian was busy censoring posters on the gay marriage story. I have no doubt that he’d have deleted a good many comments posted here as being mean-spirited or something. I guess freedom of speech is a great idea when you can control who exercises that freedom.

  19. That’s what makes The Columbian’s Blog such a total joke, Craig. There isn’t any “discussion” there and it never was intended to provide a place for “discussion” there. The Columbian doesn’t think that anybody “knows anything” but THEM. But if they didn’t have a Blog, then nobody would go to their website and they know that.

    This Blog is a great example of “discussion” and “free speech”. You either know your stuff or you get your miserable ass kicked. Whiners need not apply.

  20. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 only had about 30% public support at the time that it was passed. Had it gone to a public vote, it never would have passed.

    Was the majority in the right in 1964?

  21. This has nothing to do with “civil rights”, Greg. It isn’t a “Race” issue. Apples & Oranges.

  22. As usual, Greg, you present a baseless claim without any support.

    You point of view is, in fact, Bass Ackwards.

    “By January 1964, public opinion had started to change – 68% now supported a meaningful civil rights act. President Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act in July of that year.”

    If you had a clue what you are speaking about you would know that the main opposition was Southern Democrats in the Senate who launched a filibuster against it. President Johnson, to break the filibuster and get the bill passed, turned to Illinois Republican Everett Dirksen.

    Your continued reliance on the false equation to the Civil Rights for Black people leaves you looking desperate and grasping for straws Greg.

  23. You are right on this one, Lew. I misread the dates with the statistics. My number came from 1959.

    However, your use of biased sources don’t support your argument in the least ( and

    Human rights still are human rights, and will always win out in the end.

  24. LOL, Greg, yes our sources are “biased” and what few sources you pro-homosexual marriage supporters use aren’t? What gives your “biased” sources more credibility than others?

    Too bad you didn’t read them and instead chose to ignore them because of who hosted them. Little wonder you remain so misinformed, Greg.

    Allow me to quote a little for you,

    A simple definition of justice is ‘giving the other his due,’ that which is just or right. The right, then, is what the virtue of justice is ordered toward, i.e. the object of justice, and the act of justice is the giving of the right.
    Behind the whole concept of the right lie several anthropological presuppositions. First, the personalist principle: the right presupposes a person of inalienable worth. A being without such worth does not have any rights strictly speaking. For instance, say I am in the habit of giving my dog a bone each day. My dog does not have a right to that BONE! If I don’t give the dog a bone, I have not violated its rights.
    Man’s nature is that of a person, not an object; an end, not a means.
    And so, the only reason a person can claim any rights is because that person is a being of a particular sort, of a particular nature. As a result of this, one can never claim any particular right that is not in accord with nature, with the natural law. Rights can never conflict with the natural law. If a person claims a right that is out of accord with the natural law, that person makes a false claim. Rights only exist in the compass of nature. That is why the notions of ‘homosexual rights’ or ‘animal rights’ are all false and illusory claims. No one has a right to do what is wrong. Rights must always harmonize with nature. Rights cannot be torn outside the context of nature.

    Dr. Mark Lowery, Professor of Social Ethics, University of Dallas

    Now, if you wish to fall back on the other false analogy of “homosexuality is rampant in nature,” I need only remind you that so is incest, rape and much more we all are opposed to.

  25. It’s pretty simple – IF there is a “human right” to get married, it sure isn’t in the U.S. Constitution, and if it did actually “exist”, then how could any person living in America be denied the “right” to marry whomever or whatever they wished?

    That’s the “problem” with opening up the definition of “marriage” – it will have to be “all or none”.

    That’s why it’s just best to leave it alone as it has been for centuries.

  26. Btw, should we also try to make the other forms of mental illness “normal”? How about allowing people with multiple personalities to “marry” different people for each “personality”?

  27. By your reasoning, then, Lew, is the right to vote in harmony with nature? Is it a “natural” right? Of course not. Nature would have us subjugated to those that are the strongest, in whatever form that finds itself (intellect, strength, guise, etc). Is any particular religion in harmony with nature? Is worshipping any god you please a natural right? Those that are religious would have us believe so, but then, which god? And is religion, let’s say, Christianity, natural? If so, then, why is the teaching against the “natural man?’ According to Christianity, our “nature” is sinful, and needs to be corrected by “salvation.”

    I did read your links, Lew. The logic is so flawed and the conclusions are so out of context and outside of any logical sequence that they make no sense.

  28. By the way, Greg, on the Civil Rights Bill,

    “The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub. L. No. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241 (July 2, 1964) was a legislatively and morally courageous, landmark effort within the United States, that advanced the ideal of political and social equality by validating both the right to nondiscrimination in locales of public accommodation and the right to equal employment opportunity. It outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Originally conceived as a mechanism to protect the rights of American blacks, the bill, prior to its passage, was amended to protect the civil rights of all citizens, and, for the first time, to explicitly include women.”

    New World Encyclopedia

    If you and other pro-homosexual people persist in relying on the false analogy to the Civil Rights Bill, then you must also support all of those others you claim is moot as the bill was all encompassing. It did not cherry pick rights as pro-homosexuals are doing.

  29. That’s why it’s “apples & oranges”, Lew. The Civil Rights Act has absolutely nothing to do with “Gay marriage”.

  30. More flawed reasoning on your part, Greg?

    What about voting is not natural, in your view? One man, one vote, what could be more natural? That is the nature of being civilized.

    And yes, according to Christianity our nature is sinful. But, Christianity also gives free will to strive for better or not.

    And again, Greg, man’s nature is not that of Orangutangs.

    Well, mine isn’t, anyways, I won’t speak for yours.

  31. It was never intended to either, Jack.

    But to the left, everything is open for highjacking, just as long as it suits the perversion du jour.

  32. There is no way you can open up the definition of “marriage” in the name of “Equality” and not have it also include anybody who wants to marry anyone or anything. That’s just a plain, simple fact.

  33. Jack, “rights” are a combination of the law, pragmatism, and public opinion. Gay marriage’s time has come.

  34. No Martin, “Rights” are in the Constitution and “Gay marriage’s time” hasn’t come until the voters say so. Some people will learn that the hard way.

  35. At least Idaho still has some sanity

    Idaho senators reject protections for gays

    Martin, perhaps you could be so kind as to explain why queers should be granted “special protections” most of the rest of us are not entitled to.

    Last I heard, they are forced to sit in the back of the bus, are not denied jobs, education or voting nor are they denied sitting at a lunch counter.

    Are they targets of special crimes? I don’t see how, except that anytime one of the target of any crime as the rest of us are, the media makes out as if the only reason they were targeted was due to their particular deviancy.

    As I recall, major changes to societal norms should easily show a betterment of society. I have yet to see or hear of anybody show how society is better off throwing away to traditional, and in some states legal definition of marriage of one man to one woman. And don’t forget, several others are still denied that “equal right” while queers dance in the street.

    They had all the rights of married people with the so enhanced domestic partnership, “everything but marriage” law they demanded just 3 years ago as they labeled those of us who said that was just a stepping stone to full marriage as “liars.”

    Who was lying then?

    So please, feel free to explain how society is bettered now.

  36. Lew, “Gay marriage” is NOT “Gay rights.” Gays are NOT a protected class – anywhere.

    I’ve never personally witnessed any discrimination towards gays – but I’ve never personally witnessed race-based discrimination either, and the only discrimination I’ve witnessed towards women has been in a religious setting. The whole “Equal Rights” argument is lost on me, so when I support Gay marriage, it has nothing to do with discrimination or “rights,” I simply see no reason for gays not to marry? It’s a liberty issue.

  37. Gays Now a Protected Class under New Law

    Gays are a protected class, state judge rules

    And again, if for you it is about liberty, how do you support a bill that still writes in discrimination against others?

    As I keep asking, how does society benefit from such a change that is still denied to others? And what next?

    You’re right, this is not about equality nor is it about liberty. It’s about forcing people to accept their deviancy as normal.

  38. Just a question, Lew:

    Would you refuse to shake hands with a gay person, or not allow them admittance into your church?

    If so then at least you’re consistent. However, if you show gays social acceptance in such personal matters then your “slippery slope” argument backfires.

  39. Martin, we’re talking about “Gay marriage” here, not “socializing with Gays”. There’s a helluva difference in case you didn’t know it.

    “Gay marriage” is jacking around the definition of “marriage” just to include Gays because they think it will somehow force society to see their mental illness as “normal”.

    And for some reason you don’t seem to see that the people with other “afflictions” are watching from the background, salivating at their “chance” to “normalize” their little “fetishes”.

    It’s obvious to anyone not wearing blinders or not living in a “Kumbaya” fantasy world that this is a “slippery slope”.

  40. Jack, I’m not a religious man but I am a lawyer and a medical scientist – please explain to me what the difference is?

  41. Apples and oranges, Martin. As I have long said, homosexuals are accepted, tolerated if you will, in society today. That doesn’t mean a centuries old societal norm must be changed to accommodate them and them only so they may flash a piece of paper in other people’s faces or proclaim they are now “normal” because of some piece of paper.

    Look upon it in relation to that Woman in Bend who mutilated herself to look like a man, but retained her ovaries and uterus, all of the female parts to conceive and then declared she was pregnant man. Idiot judges can give her all of the pieces of paper they desire, she still is not a man, she is not male and no matter how often she has her breasts mutilated, she is still a woman with female reproductive parts (she claimed she retained her “reproductive rights”).

    Would I shake her hand? Sure, why not? Do I accept her as a male? Hell no, because she isn’t a male.

    Would you tolerate me showing up at your house with a piece of paper that some judge said I was now a dog and raising my hind leg to piss on the tire of your care? Or worse yet, if I convinced a judge to declare me a pigeon?

  42. Well, okay. I think I’m done talking about this issue.

  43. And Martin went to wash his tires…

  44. And Lew went to feed his pidgeons…

  45. Nope, been taking photos and submitting them to “Capture Clark County”

    Pigeons can join the crows and feed themselves 😉

  46. Oh, WOW! 🙂 Lew I love these pictures. I loved the old evergreen airport airshow thing? 🙂 And yes, I know that trestle you used as a backdrop before it fully collapsed about 5 years ago.

    I lived near it as a kid in the 1990s. Your pictures remind me of such a rich history we have here that not many people know about.

  47. Great pics, Lew. Thanks for sharing.

  48. Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey had the common sense to veto their “Gay marriage”. Maryland will have a Referendum this November for the people to vote it down just like Washington State will. New Hampshire will vote to repeal their “Gay marriage” law soon.

    It’s also “interesting” to note that Homosexuality has always been declared a form of “mental illness” until the Liberals in the World Health Organization voted to remove it from the classification in 1990.

    That doesn’t mean it still isn’t a form of “mental illness”, it just means a bunch of Liberals chose to politically change the “definition”.

  49. Notice how the queers are all “quiet” now, waiting for “the boom” to fall…

  50. NO doubt quietly working behind the scenes to delay or prevent the petitions to overturn homosexual marriage from getting out to the people to sign.

    Rest assured, they have or are designing a strategy to keep their perversion legal.

  51. Maryland has already started their Referendum:

Leave a Reply. Comments are moderated. Spam & off topic comments will not be approved at Blog Author's discretion. THIS IS NOT A FREE SPEECH ZONE!

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: