RECENT  POSTS:  » GLAAD: Why would we silence unwittingly helpful voices like yours, Peter LaBarbera? » Photo: NOM fully (and finally) owning its wholly faith-driven root » Our winning movement wins another one: Judge says Ohio must recognize out-of-state marriages » Video: Tony Perkins is pissssssssssssed at Chick-fil-a » You must be so proud of this headline, @ChristianPost » READ: Full page 'NY Times' ad pleas to supposedly refreshing new Pope: Take strong stand for LGBT youth » Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, and—activists who try to strip certain citizens of certain civil rights?! » Here we go again: Anti-equality activist going after Christian publisher for simply publishing an LGBT-affirming view » Photo: Equal marriage in Utah is like—stepping on a sailor's face?! » NOM co-founder warns Christians of the supposed gay-initiated perils that lie ahead  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

06/05/2008

Marriage foe uses 'despicable' argument

by Jeremy Hooper

Picture 28-7Speaking of the far-right's attempts to amend the California state constitution in a way that is both anti-gay and un-American, Brad Dacus of the "pro-family" Pacific Justice Institute has issued the following rally cry:

"The bottom line is that, if the people of California amend their state constitution then even the most activist, despicable of state Supreme Court justices cannot undo that," ... "And California voters need to recognize that."

"Activist" and "despicable"? Dacus and company are the ones who hope to rob thousands of gay couples of their marriages by changing state law come November, and yet it's the justices who simply ruled that current state law accommodates gay unions who are both "activist" and "despicable"? ::sigh:: Who the hell gave these "family values" folks their vocabulary lessons?

Although Brad is right that California voters need to realize just how sweepingly, constrictively unjust the passage of this measure would be for gay people. Which is exactly why we'll continue to highlight how this unreasoned encouragement of tyrannical mob rule would shoot down the reasoned legal interpretation of constitutional scholars in the most frightening of ways. We care too much about both the stakes and the state to let it get tarnished by this cruel and insidious bias.

California voters urged to send courts a 'message' [ONN]

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

Does anyone know for sure what would happen to the legal marriages performed if the amendment passes? Obviously we need to do our part to keep that from happening, but it seems that the court decision was to grant equality for all be making all such arrangements marriage as the constitution prohibits different treatment under the law. Wouldn't the Supreme Court decision then need to be interpreted to mean that the State, in order to treat all it's citizens equally, would only recognize Domestic Partnerships and Marriage would truly become only a religious institution?

Not that I want that to happen, but if that were likely, it would seem to be a good argument for even the far right to vote against this amendment.

Any other thoughts on how this might pay out?

Posted by: Todd | Jun 5, 2008 3:45:04 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails