The SC hearing in California is on Thursday, not Wednesday.
Go see the film. Excellent performance but take some tissues unless you have a heart of stone. I have walked the streets of SanFrancisco and the police still hassle the gay community. last year i was there for Castro Fair and I with many others had harrassment from the police, there was absolutly no reason to do so. keep up the fight for equality and freedom for LGBT every where.
I think this article is very interesting and has potential ramifications for the opposition to Gay marriage. It will be fascinating to see this legal argument run before the Supreme Court in California. I think Jefferson’s expression is wonderful. poppycock mumbo jumbo! Priceless, it sums up all religious belief for me perfectly.
“One group is taking it one step further, planning to place a proposition on the ballot criminalizing marriage. Referencing Article VIII of the Constitution – dropped from the formal document due to space concerns-an attorney for If We Can’t Have It No One Can, a civil rights body that pursues Jeffersonian intent, said that Thomas Jefferson “clearly wanted all people to have the same rights in their pursuit of happiness.”
“To ensure equality from what Jefferson called ‘pissants who want to urinate over everyone else’s freedoms,’ Jefferson had called for Constitutional safeguards,” said IWCHINOC attorney Alex Hamilton, referencing the recently discovered ‘Constitutional Notes To Ben: Articles That I Didn’t Get In Before Going To Press.’”
The full story is at the location below at the American Politics Journal.
“Under Article VIII – Aequalitas Nihil Prorsus (Absence Equality, Nothing At All), Jefferson wrote to Ben Franklin: “There will be those pissants who will want to urinate over everyone else’s freedoms and in that doing will use the very document that decrees freedom. To impede any attempt to do so, those who seek to take away the rights of others shall then have those same rights seized from them forthwith.”
“In actuality,” said Webster, “that principle is already secured under The Declaration of Independence – All men are created equal and endowed by their Creator to unalienable rights which include the pursuit of happiness. Jefferson just wanted to place in a deterrent to cover for infringement of freedoms by one group over another under what Jefferson, not known for holding his tongue, called ‘poppycock mumbo jumbo.’”
This is from the American Political Journal.
“It’s both a legal and moral domino,” said SYOP law professor, Dan Webster. “As soon as heterosexual men and women began having heterosexual sex with each other, it should have come as no surprise that one day everyone would think they had a right to sex, including gays. Morally, the family values groups have seen sex as an after-marriage event. Ergo, e pluribus unum, it follows that even those who financially backed Yes On Prop 8 – Mormons, Catholics, Focus on the Family – would agree that those who have sex should only have it under the legal and moral tenets of marriage. Since under the Constitution there is no prohibition of sex, the only way to keep cetain segments of the public – like homosexuals – from getting married in their pursuit of happiness, is to prohibit marriage altogether, including for heterosexuals.”
One group is taking it one step further, planning to place a proposition on the ballot criminalizing marriage. Referencing Article VIII of the Constitution – dropped from the formal document due to space concerns-an attorney for If We Can’t Have It No One Can, a civil rights body that pursues Jeffersonian intent, said that Thomas Jefferson “clearly wanted all people to have the same rights in their pursuit of happiness.”