Mary, after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the citizens of California voted to amend their constitution to make racial discrimination legal in the sale of real estate. The court voided the will of the ignorant then, too.
In San Diego, a campus of the University of California was founded purely as a graduate and scientific research campus. The campus is UCSD in La Jolla, which was then an “exclusive” neighborhood. The faculty search committee was told that there is no such thing as a first-rate scientific institution without Jewish professors. Nearly all the leading physicists and mathematicians on the Manhattan Project were Hungarian Jews who went to the same high school.
BTW, that “gentlemen’s agreement” to keep Jews from buying real estate in La Jolla was voided well in advance of the civil rights act of 1964.

There once was a law that prevented Chinese citizens (of the United States) from owning too much property. that was the will of the people, voted upon and agreed upon. It doesn’t make it right.

I feel exactly the same way about the prop 8 decision.

Mary, after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the citizens of California voted to amend their constitution to make racial discrimination legal in the sale of real estate. The court voided the will of the ignorant then, too.
In San Diego, a campus of the University of California was founded purely as a graduate and scientific research campus. The campus is UCSD in La Jolla, which was then an “exclusive” neighborhood. The faculty search committee was told that there is no such thing as a first-rate scientific institution without Jewish professors. Nearly all the leading physicists and mathematicians on the Manhattan Project were Hungarian Jews who went to the same high school.
BTW, that “gentlemen’s agreement” to keep Jews from buying real estate in La Jolla was voided well in advance of the civil rights act of 1964.

“At least without some more convincing evidence that the Act’s principal purpose was to codify malice, and that it furthered no legitimate government interests, I would not tar the political branches with the brush of bigotry.”

(Roberts, C.J. dissent, p2, on p32)
One only has to read the Congressional Record. It’s quite explicit.
The House Judiciary Committee stated that the Act was intended by Congress to “reflect and honor a collective moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality.”
In opposition to the bill, Colorado Rep. Patricia Schroeder said, “You can’t amend the Constitution with a statute. Everybody knows that. This is just stirring the political waters and seeing what hate you can unleash.”

“At least without some more convincing evidence that the Act’s principal purpose was to codify malice, and that it furthered no legitimate government interests, I would not tar the political branches with the brush of bigotry.”

(Roberts, C.J. dissent, p2, on p32)
One only has to read the Congressional Record. It’s quite explicit.
The House Judiciary Committee stated that the Act was intended by Congress to “reflect and honor a collective moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality.”
In opposition to the bill, Colorado Rep. Patricia Schroeder said, “You can’t amend the Constitution with a statute. Everybody knows that. This is just stirring the political waters and seeing what hate you can unleash.”

There once was a law that prevented Chinese citizens (of the United States) from owning too much property. that was the will of the people, voted upon and agreed upon. It doesn’t make it right.