Elisabeth Hasselbeck, Survivor Contestant: "Only The People Should Amend The Constitution"
Elisabeth Hasselbeck wants you to know that the recent Prop 8 vote in California is particularly special because it "came from the People," and that "Only the People should vote to amend the Constitution."
Um.... No.
If we left it up to The People, Liz, you wouldn't be allowed to vote to begin with. You also wouldn't get equal pay and you'd be sitting in front of Whoopi on the bus ride home.
How about free speech? You want to rail against our new president, Elisabeth? Put Free Speech to a vote on the day after a terrorist attack on American soil and see if The People would tolerate it. I think you'd find that The People aren't exactly reasonable in a time of crisis.
The problem with people like Elisabeth Hasselbeck is that, one, they only like the intervention of judges when it helps them (see "Florida Recount") and, two, they like to endow The People with more wisdom than reality (or the reality show) supports. It's a romantic notion that The People can be trusted to be reasonable, deliberate, and just. The truth is that The People are often anything but (see "Selma march"). The People don't even act in their own best interests when you remove ideology from the equation entirely. Stock market goes up, people get greedy and buy without employing any reason whatsoever (see "Dot-Com Bubble"). It goes down and those same people sell with wild-eyed terror (see "Crash of 2008").
You can't trust that The People are even remotely educated on the issues. Those of you who live in a state that votes on individual laws, think about how much time you spend on those propositions before you vote. Chances are you read a one-paragraph blurb in your sample ballot over a bowl of cereal on Election Day. If that. Are you truly weighing the pros and cons? Have you read the proposal itself, looked at the statutes on the books, heard from those who would be directly affected? Of course not. That's why we have a congress that holds hearings and why we have courts who listen to both sides of the issue. If you can't cook and you want a good meal you go to a great restaurant. If you don't know how to legislate you vote for people who do.
No, it's not perfect and it's not always going to work out the way you like. Welcome to the club. But to entrust a decision to the masses that would deprive any individual of basic human rights is worse than "legislating from the bench," it's legislating from a park bench.
|
Melissa Etheridge Takes On Elisabeth Hasselbeck Over Prop 8 (VIDEO)
Melissa Etheridge stopped by "The View" Tuesday, but before singing a Christmas song she challenged co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck about Prop 8. Etheridge married partner Tammy...
|
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Marriage is not a right it is a contract.
See Michael Seitzman's Profile
The "right" is to be treated equally. See Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Based on Your words... I think I agree with You.
Therefore...A Marriage is a 'legal' binding contract.
There is a separation of 'Church and State' in our Democracy and so the question to be asked...
and the one 'You"...seem to be stating and believe is (based on Your description)
Why is the Church trying to legislate and get involved with a Government decision/matter??
The Church has no 'Legal' position here... because of separation of Church & State.
The Church is comprised of the people and has the right to express an opinion, they are not legislating anything...
As a parent, all three of my children should have the same rights to enter into the marriage contract. If my son wants to marry a man, then he should have the same rights afforded him as my daughter does to marry a man. I should have the right to be the proud parent of all my married children, not just two of them and one with a live-in partner.
SOMETIMES ITS NOT JUST ABOUT THE GAY COUPLE, its about the people who love them. So why does anyone else care?
How does expanding the definition of marriage threaten the concept of marriage between a man and a woman?
All of my children have at least one friend with same sex parents, and GUESS WHAT. Not a one of them has asked me WHY their friends have two of the same sex parents.
And, by your reasoning, divorce is WHAT? Especially a divorce that is wanted by only one party to the marriage?
like any contract it can be dissolved by mutual agreement or by the courts if one party can prove the other did not fulfill their obligation
Marriage is not a right, it is a CONFLICT! (at least, mine was!) LOL
The main issue here is that the blatant hypocrisy of a so-called conservative who has been given a soap box by TV viewers, has been pointed out clearly.
Thank you for a very well-written piece on the dangers of mob rule.
Unfortunately people like her probably don't read. She obviously knows nothing about our government.
FINALLY - When Prop 8 failed, I had the audacity to write an article stating that the Gay Community was fighting the wrong issue - as they placed blame and compared their Civil Right issue to Blacks. I stated that Blacks did not receive Civil Rights via a majority vote but a signed law, and that I personally would not have voted for/against Prop 8 as I did not think that I should have a right to tell someone else whom, when or why they could marry, as I definitely would not want my rights given to a VOTE. I went on to state that maybe the Gay Community should file a lawsuit to challenge the definition of marriage.
I was called every name but my own, I was a FLAME and it was especially enlightening to be called a BIGOT for having the foresight and presence of mind to think that any Civil Right should not be voted on by a majority as most cannot be entrusted to educate themselves on the issue as well as the fact that Civil Rights should be legislated.
One of the problems with this issue is the inability of all sides to have proper dialog w/o resorting to name calling and comparisons of struggles. May that day comes going forward I'm holding my opinions to myself since it is apparent they weren't worth a mature conversation to begin with.
Prop 8 PASSED.
This fight started when SF Mayor Gavin Newsome, decided that exclusion of same sex partners from Civil Marriage was unconstitutional and ordered SF City to permit it.
Others opposed filed suit which was heard in California State Courts and those courts issued an injunction to stop the marriages. Eventually the Cal. Supreme court nullified the marriageaperformed in that period.
Same Sex couples sued in California claiming their equal protection rights were violated by their exclusion from such Civil Marriages. The California Supreme Court ruled last year that that was the case. After the filing of the case but prior to the issuance of the ruling similar forces began and qualified a proposition (Prop 8) to amend the California Constitution to define marriage as only between a man and woman and thus nullify the Supreme Court Decision. During the period between the ruling and the Election where Prop 8 passed same sex marriages were legally performed.
The California Supreme Court has now taken up claims and will hear, likely in March 2009 and decide the following issues:
1) Whether the process to pass Prop 8 as a Constitutional Amendment was proper - which now the Attorney General of California believes it was NOT - if it was not will nullify Prop 8. This is a procedural issue.
2) Whether the otherwise legal and valid marriages which occurred in the interim period are still valid or were nullified by Prop 8, which the supporters of Prop 8 claim they
Sorry - post got cut off.
The Supporters of Prop 8, who have filed briefs in the new California Supreme Court case, are arguing that the Same Sex Civil Marriages performed in the interim period are nullified by the passage of Prop 8.
After the California Supreme Court ruling which allowed them they petitioned the court to stay (not require enforcement) of the ruling in order (they said) to prevent the second issue from arising in the event the proposition passed. The Court denied the stay without comment (they could have stated that such a fundamental right as they described they were ruling on should not wait, i.e. a "justice delayed is justice denied" type of statement).
During the campaign, on more than one occasion the organizers for the passage of Prop 8 stated that a vote in favor of Prop 8 would NOT affect marriages performed, in apparent agreement with California Attorney General Brown, who also stated he did not believe it would (he never issued an Attorney General's Opinion on that, however).
I wrote this post regarding the historical timeline of this issue because I am confused as to what the original poster was trying to communicate his positions on the issue are as they don't seem to reflect a complete understanding of the underlying facts and timeline.
Thanks for a great article. The point to be made here is that like it or not, EH and Hannity are what's in front of the masses daily, not debating but lying. People are listening to them, so every post that the truth squad can get out to rebuttal them is a good thing. Healthy debates of the facts are welcome here, but there should be no more air time given to the liars. So let's all continue to debate the facts and shout out the truth every chance we get.
It's important to remember that 1/2 of all Americans are of below-average intelligence. They're easily fooled. They do not make well-informed decisions. They can be goaded into voting against the "elitists" and "intelligentsia."
I do not write this in a judgmental manner -- they're just as capable of being happy as anyone else, and that's all that truly matters.
I offer this observation only in an attempt to explain why the rights of a minority should not be voted on by the majority. The majority is inclined to make uninformed decisions.
I agree - saw it firsthand in my family. My sister forwarded every anti Obama email to me with the statement - if this is true I can't vote for him. She is no dummy - just not interested in politics and a pro-lifer to boot. Drove me nuts. I kept telling her - you are the demographic they are going after - don't make it so easy for them.
If Palin was capable of putting two sentences together she would be vice president today. I am newly stunned and amazed when I realize how the Palin nomination nearly worked. The EH's of this country were so easily fooled by her. I have nightmares when I remember how many times I heard - she is the most popular governor in the country. Hey fools any governor that sends each and every citizen a check for $3K will be popular too!
Where to even start, with her? Would she be saying that if Prop 8 LOST? Does she understand why constitutional amendments are designed to be harder to pass than simple laws? Oh yeah, and does she acknowledge that in electing Obama, and widening the Dem majorities in Congress, that the people have spoken?
Harold Pinter, who won the Nobel Prize for Literature died recently. People like Elizabeth Hasselbeck
seldom see issues in any kind of historical context. And most of the time, they are unwilling to admit that the
USA has been involved in many situations that are criminal or at the very least contrary to high ideals of justice thought to be "American".
She and the host of others like her, would benefit from taking the time to listen to Harold Pinter's Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech, it is so very eye opening and distinguishes between the two realities..................that of the HONEST TRUTH and the spin that masquerades many times as the American Truth.
It can be found many places online...............
Always speak truth to power.
Video and text:
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/25/harold-pinter-in-his-own-words/
Thank you! I was wondering how many times EH would get away with making that comment. So far only Melissa Etheridge has challenged her by saying - Sooooooo the majority gets to make decisions for the minority? Then that political genius Sherry went to commercial while EH babbled.
Are you reading Whoopie and Joy?????????????
The thing that works about Elisabeth Hasselbeck on the View is that she fulfills both the show's traditional"annoying hot young woman" role and that she presents a point of view that none of the other hosts agree with. It's a good thing that the other hosts are way more deft at handling her. Watching the show is like constantly seeing a little girl get put in her place.
The talking points on that show are so repetitive. I have to realize it's because the panel members expect that the day's audience haven't seen them before. I think I never saw the notion that consenting adults should be allowed to pick their family members. That's the real issue for me at least.
"the biggest threat to democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter" - Winston Churchill.
So true. Hey, the wise people voted for Bush - proof that "The People" can be wrong.
I seriously question your logic, Wise people did not vote for bush. The entitlement people voted for bush. Eh is one of their spokespeople.
Would Elizabeth Hasselbeck use this syllogism?
"I lied.
The people fell for it.
Therefore, holding on to the truth is elitism."
Face it; the organizers of Prop H8 lied. They argued that "freedom of religion" was strengthened when Catholics can tell Unitarian Universalists who they may marry in their churches.
They said they wanted to protect traditional marriage; which is like saying that the false alarmist in Oliver Wendell Holmes's crowded theater had any concern for fire safety.
They said that "marriage has a history of 5000 years of a man and a woman" when the Mormons were in the driver's seat.
I suppose it's possible that if the organizers had told the truth, that they only wished to deny equivalent rights to people who are politically incorrect in their book; they would still have gotten the same result. The defenders must deal with the fact of the lying; they can't simply pretend that the misled people were any ultimate authority.
How about this Elisabeth? Repeat after me. I was wrong about George Bush and his administration. I supported a war based on lies made by politicians I worship only because they agree with glorius ME. I am sorry about the deaths caused by my support of an unlawful and immoral war.
(See the best episode of Happy days when Fonzie tries to apologize for an example).
Very eloquent! The theatre metaphor is very good.
Before I start, I wanted to mention that this article is
"way above" what that "dim-bulb" Hasselbeck can understand-
Next who cares what a pea-brain, ex-reality show drop-out has to say!
It's unfortunate that an this article is about someone who doesn't have
any analysis other than what her husband tells her and has no sense of history to be credible.
Hasselbeck and her GOP advisors need to return to that "island" that gave her fame,
only this time lets leave her there without any help or a way off-
that island that gave her fame is Australia...i think i can speak on behalf of all Australians when I say NO NO NO...just like the Gitmo prisoners...you created the problem, you deal with it!!
li'l lizabet hasselbeck is just cute as li'l bug! sometimes she says something that the studio audience likes to hear and agree with. she thinks she's just as smart as smart can be. get off that show and run for office. americans usually vote for people with less than she has. and she has very close to nothing!
This is a tricky subject and caution must be observed, putting aside the lame idiotic remarks made by right wing republican hawks like Ms Hasselbeck, Mr Seitzman is correct many of the rights we now enjoy would not be possible if the Supreme court had not legislated from the bench, however ultimately I must agree with Jefferson that we must trust in majority rule.
While the court legislating from the bench has granted many rights, overruling the legislature, they have also denied many rights, such as in the Dred Scott decision where the Justices of the Supreme Court, 7 of which were appointed by pro slavery presidents ruled that a slave had no rights under the constitution to sue for their freedom.
"It rests now with ourselves alone to enjoy in peace and concord the blessings of self-government, so long denied to mankind: to shew by example the sufficiency of human reason for the care of human affairs and that the will of the majority, the Natural law of every society, is the only sure guardian of the rights of man. Perhaps even this my sometimes err. But it's errors are honest, solitary and short-lived. -- Let us then, my dear friends, for ever bow down to the general reason of the society. We are safe with that, even in it's deviations, for it soon returns again to the right way. "
Thomas Jefferson, 1790
Thomas Jefferson also required an educated citizenry in order to ensure a well run democracy. We are no closer to that ideal in the era of right wing radio dominance, under supported schools and an over-stressed, over-entertained populace.
Perhaps change is coming.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
