't'-less Mat wants baseless 'stay'
So why do our opponents want to "stay" the fair marriage ruling that was issued by the California Supreme Court? Well, because apparently they want to protect us all from having to experience the emotional roller coaster that would result from the invalidation of same-sex marriages. What mensches they are!
Speaking to One News Now, anti-gay attorney Mat Staver (who argued against marriage equality in this case) puts it this way:
"[Approval of the amendment] would, I believe, invalidate all of the licenses issued [for homosexuals]," he says. "And therefore we'd have the same fiasco in 2008 like we had with the mayor of San Francisco in 2004. It makes common sense and it certainly is prudential to have this court stay its opinion -- and that's exactly what we are asking this court to do."
So essentially Mat's using the "I'm pretty sure we're gonna use our one-sided biases to change the law in a way that makes its hostile to one sect of the population, so let's hold off on distributing the rights that the sect in question has been found to deserve under the confines of current law until we have our go at fostering discrimination " line of logic. That line of logic is patently flawed (with a lowercase law)! It's offensive enough that he and his pals are trying to overturn justice come November. But to stand in the way of that justice between now and autumn? Well that'd be a worse summer plan than filling the "Big Brother" house with pacifists who are afraid of confrontation.
Here's what we think: Mat and his pals know that every time a happy same-sex couple is shown taking advantage of their newly found freedom to marry, another Californian's mind is going to be opened to just how non-controversial the subject truly is. Folks they know, like Ellen and George Takei, will put a public face on the concept. Co-workers who they never even knew were gay will come back with photos and stories from their big days. The ideas of equality, decency, and uniform citizenship will resonate in ways like never before, causing those who had previously been sitting on the fence or even playing in the "pro-family" fields to make their way over the side of basic fairness. All leading to the inevitable day when the "sanctity of marriage" side's house of cards will be blown over by the winds of progressive change.
If we were trying to pass off unfairness as righteousness, we'd also want to hold back the hand that's ultimately going to pull back our curtain. However, if we were a judge who was sworn to put the constitution over speculative rhetoric, we'd do the undebatably right thing: Let the ruling proceed as planned!
**NOTE: Because One News Now is apparently in the third grade, they are still redirecting all of the links from our site so that they instead point to an "Are you a good person?" test. To view the source link, you have to have to copy it and open in a new window: 'Politically expedient' to stay Calif. ruling [ONN]
**UPDATE: SF to 'stay': Go away! [G-A-Y]
comments powered by Disqus