As we all know, there was a vote in CA about “Gay Marriage”.  Believe it or not, the people of CA voted against allowing “Gay Marriage”.

So, why isn’t that good enough?

Now, they are taking it to court.  Again.  Why should a panel of 3 or 4 people be able to override the will of the people.  Why should they be able to change the basic definition of a word?

Why is it OK to violently attack the opposition?

I can’t image how the news would have ran this story if it was the other way around.  (Not that I would ever condone violence against anyone.)  But could you imagine the furor if the table were turned and the Catholics came out in droves to protest the first gay marriages?  Even if it was a peaceful protest?  They would immediately be labeled right wing, extremist, religious bigots.

But to attack Catholics and Mormons for their long - held beliefs?  It isn’t like we didn’t know before where they stood on this issue.  (Well, Biden, Reid, and Pelosi might not have known)

But now they have published blacklists (ala McCarthy Era) of names of people who contributed money?  (Gee, why couldn’t Obama have been so efficient with his campaign contributions).  People have actually been fired from their jobs.  Businesses have actually been boycotted and picketed.  Since when did our individuals lose the right to express and support dissenting views?

The above includes footage of a church protest run by a group calling itself “Bash Back”.

Why am I expected to be “supportive” of an Obama presidency and accept the vote as the “Will of the People”, yet these groups are not expected to do the same regarding the Prop 8 vote?

And no, I don’t believe that protesting is wrong.  It is something that we can do, as citizens.  You don’t really believe that I am going to blindly follow the Obamamessiah just because he was elected, do you?  But, I am not violently attacking his supporters or boycotting their businesses, or protesting in their churches, either.

UPDATE:  Calif. Supreme Court to take up gay marriage ban.  Gee, what a surprise.  Although I did get a chuckle off of the final line:  “They [the plaintiffs] argue that voters alone did not have the authority to enact such a significant constitutional change.”  Excuse me?  They are trying to change the basic definition of a work and marriages, in general, since the founding of our country, but they say the voters are trying to change the Constitution?  Which amendment of our Constitution allows for “gay marriage”?  I obviously missed that one in Civics class.

(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

 Loading ...

View Technorati blog reactions.

Related Posts