The Concerned Women for America have made up a debate between openly gay Representative Barney Frank and a hypothetical conservative regarding the recent Santorum sodomy interview. I’m completely amazed that, even when they make up the questions and the answers and have total control over the terms of the “debate,” they still lose! They’re apparently so embarrassed by their poor showing against a fictional Frank that they’ve excised all reference to him by name in the re-released interview (although the hypothetical “LIBERAL” is still a “Congressman”). My favorite part is how they declare that “the people” have the pwer to decide what other people may and may not do in the sack, except for the legally married one man one woman married people, but then totally weasel on whether or not “the people” should be able to outlaw oral sex between married couples!
According to this survey “the people” overwhelmingly favor repealing sodomy laws. I wonder if CWA will now drop its opposition to repeal since “the people” have spoken?
I’m not defending any group or viewpoint, but there is a huge difference between repealing a law (will of the people) and the Supreme Court striking it down (which Santorum’s comments were in reference to). So really, your question does not follow from the information provided.
CWA thinks that homosexual sodomy should be illegal, meaning they oppose repeal (judicially or legislatively). Their stance is that “the people” should decide whether or not ass-fucking should be legal. The people have spoken and they want legal ass-fucking. If CWA really means what they say, that the people should decide, then the principled thing for CWA to do is switch their stance and support the will of the people through repeal.
So do you believe that the Supreme Court is not allowed to know the will of the people?
Heck, it even goes beyond that. The Supreme Court, as an institution, is one based on the idea that the Will of the People is not always correct (the “tyrannical majority”). To use an extreme example: Was slavery just hunky-dory just because most people were in favor of it (at one point)?
The will of the people is a highly subjective concept.
The will of the people of Oregon is for Physician Assisted Suicide and Medical Marijuana. Ashcroft’s response is to go against the will of the people.
Was it ever on any ballot before questions of repealing sodomy laws? I don’t think the laws were voted in. Thus, it doesn’t reflect the will of the people there either.
Usually (and I’m not accusing akennett of this but speaking in general) people who make pious appeals to “the will of the people” usually mean “the will of the people that I agree with.” Annoying but true. (Dewey is a principled exception to that.)
On the other board where I moderate, the lady who has undertaken the task of searching out Net news sites for items with a “Christian” interest keeps finding stuff from WorldNetDaily and AgapePress that are effectively rewritten press releases from CWA and their affiliate Culture and Family Institute. They consist of a one-paragraph summary (usually but not always slanted) of an issue followed by five to ten paragraphs of reasons why the subject is “dangerous” or “destructive of American values” with extensive quotes from one Bob Knight, who appears to be the sole main spokesman for both organizations.
And I agree with you, Otto, and Congressman Frank, that he comes out better in the “debate” than they do. I’d love to see that article quoted (or paraphrased, to comply with copyright law) point by point in GD as propositions for debate.
A slight hijack, Polycarp, but has this guy ever denounced books written by a man named Bob Goss at Webster University in St. Louis? I’m just wondering since I attend that school and Bob Goss recently got denied tenue, to the ire of many students here. I think he wrote some books saying Jesus was gay, or something to that effect.
