[Vision2020] California Supreme Court to Take Up Gay Marriage

[Kai Eiselein, Editor]

That single sentence could be used as precedence to deny voters the ability 
to make their voices heard and hand over more power to courts and 
legislators.
Bad idea.
Really, really bad idea.
Surely, you of the holy 60's era could understand that.
Or did you forget about your whole "Power to the people!" mantra.
"Power to the people... except when I disagree with what the majority says" 
is more like it.

Just to be clear here, I don't give a rip one way or another about gay 
marriage. I couldn't care less about what consenting adults do.

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Tom Hansen" <thansen at moscow.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 8:50 AM
To: <editor at lataheagle.com>; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] California Supreme Court to Take Up Gay Marriage

> Kai Eiselein stated:
>
> "'They argue that voters alone did not have the authority to enact such a
> significant constitutional change.'
>
> THAT is one scary sentence."
>
> To convey the proper context of the article you should also cite the
> sentence before your cited reference.  It reads:
>
> "All three cases claim the measure abridges the civil rights of a
> vulnerable minority group."
>
> Now, the statement in its proper context does not suggest that the voting
> public should be denied their democratic and constitutional rights.  The
> statement merely suggests that an amendment to a state constitution cannot
> deprive the citizenry of its rights guaranteed by the US Constitution,
> regardless of how that amendment was adopted.
>
> Certainly, you as a journalist can understand that, right Kai?
>
> Seeya round town, Moscow.
>
> Tom Hansen
> Moscow, Idaho
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------
> This message was sent by First Step Internet.
>           http://www.fsr.com/
>
>
Kai Eiselein
Editor, Latah Eagle