Amnesty International enters the Prop 8 debate:
Amnesty International is calling on the California Supreme Court to overturn California’s Proposition 8, the voter-passed amendment that enshrined the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman in the state constitution
In anticipation of a case challenging the validity of Proposition 8 being heard this week in the California Supreme Court, Dalia Hashad, Amnesty International (AI) USA Policy Director issued a statement, outlining AI’s position in favor of homosexual “marriage” and demanding that the court ignore the referendum that passed the Proposition.
“Amnesty International opposes discrimination in civil marriage. But this case is not just about same-sex marriage,” reads the statement. “It is about the basic human right to be treated equally under the law, without regard to an individual’s sexual orientation, race, religion or gender.
“States should never withhold rights based on minority status. Denying equal civil recognition of same-sex relationships compounds the effects of discrimination, undermines other rights, such as the right to housing or social security and tragically, stigmatizes those relationships in ways that can fuel further discrimination.”
There are two equally insane strands of liberal thought converging here:
1. A constitution, of any sort, must secure the broadest, most liberal concept of what human rights are.
2. A constitution does not in any way, shape or form permit the people to do anything liberals disagree with.
Even supposing you believe that same-sex marriage is a basic human right (which, in itself, is an insane idea because you can’t have a right to do a thing which requires the voluntary cooperation of more than one person), it is still a fact that governments are instituted among men to secure basic human rights and derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. The enforcement of the Amendments to our constitution is non-controversial because they were placed in the constitution by the consent of the governed – the reason we’re still involved, more than three decades on, in a contentious debate over abortion is because a few judges placed abortion rights in the constitution without the consent of the governed. Now along comes liberalism with its new-found right to same-sex marriage and an insistence that the consent of the people is not required to enforce this alleged right.
The anti-human nature of liberalism is starkly displayed here – so in love with the concept of humanity, liberalism finds it impossible to love actual, individual humans. If a human is opposed to liberalism it is, according to liberals, the result of wickedness or idiocy, in neither case should liberals consider dissent from liberalism to be valid. Human beings, after giving it careful consideration over many years and hearing the argument well presented from both sides of the issue have repeatedly and by strong to overwhelming majorities decreed that whatever else anyone wishes to do, marriage shall be a union of one man and one woman. This is, of course, in contravention of liberal thinking, and thus the people have to be taken out of the equation – and so we have the liberal resort to judges to try and over turn the will of the people.
Some years back I opined on a blog that modern liberals are junior-league Leninists – meaning they are just as sure of themselves as Lenin and just as insistent upon the crushing of dissent, but they thus far lack the sheer insanity of a Lenin which allowed him to murder millions of people to advance his cause. I begin to wonder if the junior-league Leninsts are trying to graduate to the major league…
Blogs For Victory 