A quite telling quote in an article on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in Missouri:
“Ultimately we're right and they're simply wrong.”
This comes from the campaign manager of the organization on the losing side of the vote (and by losing side, I mean they had 70% of the people who voted vote against them). Right, wrong… an absolute moral code that seems to contradict the will of the vast majority of the residents of the state… doesn't look like there's moral relativism at work here, which is rather unusual for a group like this. Another interesting quote:
“Opponents said the amendment was unnecessary and discriminatory, but knew they faced an uphill battle in Missouri.”
Unnecessary? After a court in Massachusetts managed to 'find' something approving of gay marriage in their 200-odd year old constitution and Puritan history, and used it to overturn a legislative action? I wouldn't call that unnecessary. Blatantly violating the will of the people by some judicial sleight-of-hand that distorts the plain meanings of the words is an abuse of power, and the less the people of this country stand for it, the better off we'll be.
Looking at the official website of the opponents of this amendment…
“…Amendment 2 is unnecessary and mean-spirited.”
“It’s thought that these laws are likely to be overturned in some states, but not in Missouri, given the make-up of our state’s judicial branch.”
“The Anti-Marriage Amendment Is Just the Latest Step in a Radical Legislative Agenda.”
The first one amuses me. “It's not nice!” is a lovely criticism of legislation: there's no refutation to it. It's subjective and irrefutable, but not exactly a good strong logical argument.
The second one is somewhat silly, as a judicial branch's make up changes over time. It's quite silly, given the moves at the national level by the Democrats to filibuster judicial appointments that they disagree with — who's to say you're not going to work at it until you CAN overrule the law?
The last one is silly to the point of wearing tinfoil hats. A “Radical Legislative Agenda”? If 70% of the state's residents are voting for the key piece of this 'agenda,' it's NOT radical. There is a delusional mindset at work when you start calling something that a vast majority approve of 'radical.'
The final thought on this one is that it's ironic that this organization is called the “Constitution Defense League.” They're defending the Constitution from what, exactly? An amendment? Constitutions have provisions in them to be amended. It's SUPPOSED to happen when the people of the state find it to be necessary. And where are these people calling to defend constitutions when they're being mauled by activist judges to say something that they quite patently never said? It seems that it's fine if you leave the text alone, and pretend it says something different, but it's suddenly evil and 'radical' when you decide to change the text to make sure that it's more difficult for certain judges to pretend it means what they want it to mean, and project their desires and whims on the public at large.