Breaking News, Top Breaking News, Liberal News
Liberal news Liberal News
 









PageOneQ's Mike Rogers appears on Fox News to defend gays' marriage rights

by PageOneQ

If the people can vote away gay citizens' right to marry in California this upcoming November, asked activist Mike Rogers during a recent panel discussion, why didn't the Supreme Court let the voters continue to dictate who their fellow citizens could marry based on race?

California's gay marriage ban, overturned by California's Supreme Court on May 15, was a "super statute," said Liberty Counsel chairman and founder Matt Staver, meaning that it was higher than a legislative measure but didn't have the weight of an amendment to the constitution, the intent of this year's Proposition 8.

"And that amendment, when passed--I believe it will pass, and it only needs 50% to pass--will overrule this activist 4-3 decision by the California Supreme Court and restore marriage as the union of one man and one woman as it has historically been, in that state and around the country."

"Why not let the voters decide," Ingraham asked Rogers, worrying that gay marriage could become the next Roe v. Wade.

"I think that the primary reason we don't do it is because the tyranny of the majority is why we have a Constitution," Rogers said. "And if we put everything to a majority vote in the Constitution, an awful lot of things wouldn't happen in the country."

Rogers cites the Supreme Court's 1967 Loving v. Virginia decision, striking down laws banning interracial marriage.

"We didn't go back and ask the states, 'Should people be able to marry interracially?' In fact, I bet, today, if you were able to go back to the states and vote on that it might actually pass in some states to ban those marriages."

Why, countered Ingraham, should four Supreme Court justices override voters at the ballot box when it comes to the definition of the "age-old institution" of marriage?

"This 'age-old institution' has changed throughout history," said Rogers.

"By whom, though?" Ingraham pressed. "It's being changed by judicial fiat, that's what Matt would say."

"This is not a civil rights issue," countered Staver. "In fact, what we have is an oligarchy issue when four of seven justices literally take the Constitution, which nowhere protects marriage between two people of the same sex, and interpret it based on their own ideology."

"It's ridiculous," he went on, "to say, as we approach the Declaration of Independence's birthday, the birth of this country, the basis of liberty, that...four people can rewrite the institution of marriage but millions of California voters have no say in that particular issue.

"I believe when the people speak they'll speak as they've always done around the country, and they'll choose marriage as the union as one man and one woman, because it's best for our foundation, it's best for our children, and it's part of the democratic process."

"If Mr. Staver believes that he's telling the truth," Rogers charged, "why, on June 17th, did he lie to the American people and make up things about polygamy, and people being able to get married in California when they have unions? Why did he make up stories in Florida on the No on 2 Amendment, and the whole marriage amendment there, where he's claiming that it won't affect unmarried elderly retired couples, when it will?"

The entire exchange, broadcast on Fox News' This Just In with Laura Ingraham on July 3, 2008, is available to view below.











|

Originally published on Monday July 7, 2008.


Copyright © 2007 Page One News Media, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy policy