Yes, folks. The ultimate authority has spoken. If only I had my own Walker, Texas Ranger lever next to my desk…
No kung fu here, but he has some good arguments in support of Prop 8. Citing many examples of backlash protests, Norris gives a great explanation of a PRO Prop 8 stance. Go get ’em Chucky! Excerpts below or read the full text here.
What’s wrong with this picture? Lots.
First, there’s the obvious inability of the minority to accept the will of the majority. Californians have spoken twice, through the elections in 2000 and 2008. Nearly every county across the state (including Los Angeles County) voted to amend the state constitution in favor of traditional marriage.
Nevertheless, bitter activists simply cannot accept the outcome as being truly reflective of the general public. So they have placed the brainwashing blame upon the crusading and misleading zealotry of those religious villains: the Catholics, evangelical Protestants, and especially Mormons, who allegedly are robbing the rights of American citizens by merely executing their right to vote and standing upon their moral convictions and traditional views.
What’s surprising (or maybe not so) is that even though 70 percent of African-Americans voted in favor of Proposition 8, protests against black churches are virtually nonexistent. And everyone knows exactly why: Such actions would be viewed as racist. Yet these opponents of Prop. 8 can protest vehemently and shout obscenities in front of Mormon temples without ever being accused of religious bigotry. There’s a clear double standard in our society. Where are the hate-crime cops when religious conservatives need them?
There were many of us who passionately opposed Obama, but you don’t see us protesting in the streets or crying “unfair.” Rather, we are submitting to a democratic process and now asking how we can support “our” president. Just because we don’t like the election outcome doesn’t give us the right to bully those who oppose us. In other words, if democracy doesn’t tip our direction, we don’t swing to anarchy. That would be like the Wild West, the resurrection of which seems to be happening in these postelection protests.
I agree with Prison Fellowship’s founder, Chuck Colson, who wrote: “This is an outrage. What hypocrisy from those who spend all of their time preaching tolerance to the rest of us! How dare they threaten and attack political opponents? We live in a democratic country, not a banana republic ruled by thugs.”
Regardless of one’s opinion of Proposition 8, it is flat-out wrong and un-American to intimidate and harass individuals, churches and businesses that are guilty of nothing more than participating in the democratic process. Political protests are one thing, but when old-fashioned bullying techniques are used that restrict voting liberties and even prompt fear of safety, activists have crossed a line. There is a difference between respectfully advocating one’s civil rights and demanding public endorsement of what many still consider to be unnatural sexual behavior through cruel coercion and repression tactics. One thing is for sure: The days of peaceful marches, such as those headed up by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., seem to be long gone.
The truth is that the great majority of Prop. 8 advocates are not bigots or hatemongers. They are American citizens who are following 5,000 years of human history and the belief of every major people and religion: Marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. Their pro-Prop. 8 votes weren’t intended to deprive any group of its rights; they were safeguarding their honest convictions regarding the boundaries of marriage.
Amen and amen. You can always count on Chuck Norris.
Because your blog needs comments, I just thought I’d throw in my two cents.
The role of the courts is to ensure that the rights of the minorities are not undermined by the majority. The best example from history is Brown v. Board of Education. The majority in the area wanted segregation, but it was determined that it wasn’t constitutional, so schools were “forced” to be segregated. History allows us to see that this was the right thing to do.
I’m not saying that allowing gays to marry is the right thing to do, but I am saying that “majority rules and that the end of it” requires checks and balances as well.
Eric Snider’s comments on the subject are interesting (and humorous) http://www.ericdsnider.com/snide/the-gay-marriage-column/
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTU5MjZmMDIyMDU3NjRiMjBlNjcxYTlmOGQ2ODA5NjA=
Similar to Chuck Norris, with a few more arguments.
Great point, CK Rock. A majority vote doesn’t make something right or wrong. But I still take issue with the method of redress of the opposition after losing the election.
The courts have an important role in protecting the rights of minority groups and majority groups. The question remains then, is this minority’s constitutional right being infringed upon by the majority vote. I personally believe it is not, but we’ll see how the courts interpret the CA state constitution.
All citizens are granted the ability to marry, but are not granted the ability to marry whatever or whomever they wish. Two consenting heterosexual adults who may claim to be in love are still not legally allowed to marry if one of them is the parent of the other. As a society we’ve decided that is not in the best interest of all parties involved and affected.
Defining marriage doesn’t take away anyone’s right to marry, but it does place parameters on who or what a person can marry. Gay people still have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, but they have squandered that right through their own choice (in CA at least, this still doesn’t affect any other individual rights). You could compare this to U.S. citizens who, for religious or other reasons, decide not to vote. (An imperfect analogy, I admit). The right is still there, the opportunity available, but they have chosen not to take advantage of it.
Oh, and thanks for the link to the ever funny, ever irreverent Eric Snider 🙂
Who knew Mr. Norris was such a thoughtful and well spoken, if in written form, person? I didn’t but I think it’s just one more reason to let him go around kicking people in the face for burning the cookies.