Stealing From Sully

Yes, I know.. if the guy is so maddening, why read him, right? That's a good point, but somehow I enjoy how somebody with a PhD from Harvard in political science can be so adept at missing the point.

Anyway.. for the topic that Sullivan does get right, virtually every time, we have this little exchange with a reader of his.

You wrote:

"If only more Republicans had the humanity and courage of the mayor of San Diego."

The mayor is advocating having a judge make the law not the people. Where in the annuals of western civilization is it best that judges make the law and not a legislative branch or the people by voting?

You are a selfish, demented faggot. All you care about is yourself and to hell with everyone else.

PS Kerry still hasn't released all his military records.

Sullivan still misses a critical point that a Doctor of Political Science should reference first, and foremost. The United States of America is not a "democracy". Our form of government is a "Constitutional Republic". The difference is vital, as the founding fathers knew that the rights of minorities would need to be protected from the mindless hatred of the majority.

There is no such thing as an "activist judge". Either the judge has Constitutional authority, or he does not. The term "activist" is simply another in a long litany of slogans that the loons use to discredit their political opponents. It has no meaning. In fact, judges "strike down" laws, they don't create them. What happens with same-sex marriage (Massachusetts is a great example) is that the court strikes down the state marriage law, and forces the legislature to pass a new law if they want to have legal marriage in their state. The legislature is quite welcome to not pass any new law, but that's obviously unrealistic. The legislature must write a new law which does not violate the state Constitution, thus they pass the law which conforms to the courts ruling.

That's how the system works in a Constitutional Republic, and I wonder why the freaks always feel the need to attack that system? Do they hate the American form of government?

Sullivan's reader asks a question though, which Sully simply ignores, but I'll answer it for him.

Where in the annuals of western civilization is it best that judges make the law and not a legislative branch or the people by voting?

How about Loving vs. Virginia? The United States Supreme Court struck down the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", which made it a felony for a white person to marry a non-white person. The effect of the ruling forced states with anti-miscegenation laws to rewrite their marriage laws to conform to the Constitution.

At the time of the ruling, 78% of the American public was opposed to inter-racial marriage. The judges on the court simply looked to the Constitution and struck down the anti-miscegenation laws, despite the views of the public at large. The public got NO vote on it, just as they get NO vote on same-sex marriage.

I suspect that the only reason why a majority of Americans support racial equality is because they had it shoved down their throats. People are idiots after all. The same will be true of same-sex marriage.

"If the only arguments against same sex marriage are sectarian, then opposing the legalization of same sex marriage is invidious in a fashion no different from supporting anti miscegenation laws".

I don't understand how people can support some "middle ground" of "civil unions". It's a logical disconnect. Either the equal protection clause applies, or it doesn't, and if it doesn't, you can't repeal segregation.

I also don't get why Sully's reader thinks he's being selfish. "All you care about is yourself and to hell with everyone else." And how does it affect "everyone else" exactly?

That reader is simply a shitbag of contradiction and confusion and hatred, and as I've said, I enjoy seeing them come unglued.

On June 12, 2007, Mildred Loving issued a rare public statement prepared for delivery on the 40th aniversary of the Loving v Virginia decision of the US Supreme Court, which commented on same-sex marriage. [2] The concluding paragraphs of her statement read as follows:

“Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.