Comments on: Ruby-Sachs: Ken Starr tells us how it is

By: drewski

drewski — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 05:48:25 +0000

Ryan, you’re wrong. You speak of constitutions in general; right now, Iran and China both have text in their constitutions explicitly guaranteeing the rights of minorities to exist unmolested. Extending suffrage to American women was not a vote of the majority of the population. Most US states have elements in their constitutions dating from times when women couldn’t vote, or blacks couldn’t vote, or Catholics couldn’t vote, or people who didn’t own land couldn’t vote. Do like Ken Starr and hew close to your statement, and you would have every state constitution tied up in litigation for decades to come.

Even hardcore conservatives are forced to acknowledge that law is a living, evolving thing. If it weren’t, people like Antonin Scalia would be stuck baking pizza and re-soling shoes. People like Clarence Thomas…

By: Randy

Randy — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 00:58:08 +0000

Starr and Ruby-Sachs are both wrong.
It’s perfectly reasonable, and constitutional, to undo something already in a constitution. That’s why alcohol is legal in the US. It would be a pretty bad system that engraved everything in stone.
And depending on what is in the constitution, it is not necessary any check on the tyranny of the majority, or any other tyranny. If the constitution says popular vote wins, then it wins. Simple.
However, what both have failed to understand is that the California constitution is subject to the US constitution and may not be amended to restrict a group of people from government services, which is why Colorado Amendment 2 was overturned at the US Supreme Court.

By: Dr. Peter

Dr. Peter — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 00:54:46 +0000

RE: ken starr tells us how it is—-RIGHT ON! Ruby-Sachs. Thank you againand again.

Dr. Peter

By: Morgan

Morgan — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 19:22:31 +0000

Ryan,
When that consensus involves direct oppression against the lives of human beings, then those human beings should do all they can to rectify such an untenable situation. Do you wear an ill-fitting shoe that damages your feet? No, you do something about it.

In the case of a constitution that outlaws and tyrannizes gay people, gay people do not take that lying down. They do something about that document. They rally to their side forces of good and of fairness to gain the eventual support of the public to undo the wrong that was hammered into the constitution.

Constitutions normal expand the rights of people and not trample on or deny those basic rights. Unless you live in Africa where a number of constitutions have been amended to criminalize gay marriage and or gay people. This country has been sinking down to the level of antigay Africa, and we need to stop the decline of our country and make it reverse direction and become a truly 21st century Western Democracy.

When we have Cuba and Nepal now on the way to granting gay people rights, even marriage rights in the case of Nepal, after US refused to back gay rights at the UN, we rapidly approaching the bottom of the list of Western Democracies.

With Norway (with its brand new gay marriage law, SURPRISED THE EDITORIAL STAFF AT 365GAY.COM HADN’T YET CAUGHT ON THE FACT NORWAY HAD ITS DAY OF GAY MARRIAGE ON NEW YEAR’S DAY OF 2009, AND BECAME GAY MARRIAGE #6. WHAT A GORGEOUS COUNTRY TO HAVE A GAY WEDDING IN!!

Now, let’s see, top of the list of Western Democracies, Norway, and the other Scandinavian kingdoms, Sweden may be getting gay marriage this summer, Denmark, Canada, New Zealand, etc.

Israel lets gay people serve in its military.

USA is at the very bottom of the major Western Democracies in terms of gay rights, no secret to anyone. In Canada, gay military personel can get married on a military base as happied in Nova Scotia a couple of years ago between 2 gay male officers.

Parts of the world are moving forward while the USA is still held back, thanks to guys like Ken Starr.

By: Brad

Brad — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 18:09:29 +0000

PLEASE….Publish less Ruby-Sachs tripe!

By: brian

brian — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 17:33:41 +0000

If Starr were correct,this case wouldn’t be sitting in front of the California Supreme Court to make the final decision, would it? Minority rights must be protected from the tyranny of the majority. If not, let’s start putting other groups on the ballot.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:46:54 +0000

Constitutions are not a check on the tyranny of the majority, but rather a consensus by the majority on how to be governed and to resolve conflict.

Also, I am fairly certain that Ken Starr knows what a constitution is, even if I disagree with his interpretation.