Marriage foe uses 'despicable' argument
Speaking 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.
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 PMcomments powered by Disqus