Judging the judges, CT edition
In response to the wonderful, joyous, principled, fair-minded, long overdue Connecticut marriage ruling, the Family Institute of Connecticut's Peter Wolfgang has spat forth the following:
“Even a legislature as liberal as ours has heeded the will of the people and said no to same-sex ‘marriage’ year after year. With today’s ruling the Supreme Court has said to the people of Connecticut that ‘No, even this victory will be denied to you. We, your robed masters, will decide the big questions of politics and you little people will have no choice but to bend to our will.’ By ruling in this way the Court has undermined its own legitimacy and called into question whether we are still a free and self-governing people in Connecticut. But we will not bow to the dictates of a handful of self-appointed philosopher kings. If the Court will not respect its proper role to interpret, not make, law then we will seek other remedies. We will work for a majority “yes” vote this November 4th to hold a state constitutional convention and will fight to get a direct initiative law out of the convention. And then we will put a question on the ballot to allow the public—not our robed masters—to decide once and for all if marriage will be protected in our state constitution as the union of a man and a woman.
“Connecticut does not want judges to impose same-sex ‘marriage’ by undemocratic fiat. Connecticut wants the same right exercised by 28 other states: to decide by direct initiative whether marriage will be protected or redefined. We need the right that exists in all but 19 states: to let the people have direct say over our laws. The Court’s willingness to undemocratically impose same-sex ‘marriage’ on Connecticut has made it necessary for us to demand the right to Let the People Decide. And that is why thousands of us will vote ‘yes’ for a constitutional convention on November 4th.”
Robed masters? Self-appointed philosopher kings? Wow, that's some strong language there, Mr. Wolfgang. The first term is clearly meant to invoke tyranny and cast "the people" in the slave role, while the second is meant to make the justices sound as if they coasted to their places of prominence on the backs of nothing more than their "liberal" values. But two things belie these ad hominem attacks: (1) What the justices truly did is remove an unfair limitation that has been used to keep gay equality enslaved in a cell of unreasoned bias. (2) The justices were all appointed by -- wait for it, wait for it -- RIGHT-LEANING GOVERNORS!! (*See note at bottom)
And so what does the appropriately named Peter Wolfgang suggest? Well, he wants "the people (sans gays and liberals)" to force a constitutional convention, a lengthy and costly process in which the (Democratically controlled) legislature can pick apart the entire state constitution and make alterations where needed. THAT's what he considers to be fair. THAT's what he considers to be non-fiat-like. Not letting trained constitutional scholars interpret the constitution that's currently in place, but rather having elected lawmakers (who obviously are not beholden to the same nonpartisan standards as an independent judiciary) CREATE new limitations. And if that doesn't work, what -- both Connecticut gays and the majority justices should keep an eye out for torches and pitchforks!?
Ya know, their plan of convoluted constitutional reworking is pretty funny considering that this is the same crew who always cries about the "founding fathers' intent." I guess when it comes to futzing with Bob and Joe and their legal union, the only father that matters is the one who found his son in a tutu and freaked the f**k out!
Press Release -10/10 [FIC]
*Photo: Hartford Courant
(*NOTE: The late Gov. Lowell Weicker appointed Justices Palmer, Norcott, and Katz; Gov. Rell appointed Justice Haper. While Rell is a bona fide Republican, Weicker actually left the Republican party before his gubernatorial bid, instead running as an Independent on a" Connecticut Party" ticket. So technically he wasn't a Republican when he appointed the justices; but he, someone who ran for the GOP presidential nomination in 1980, certainly wasn't a "liberal.")
More Fundamentalist victim mentality to start off the week.
Posted by: Evan | Oct 13, 2008 9:57:37 AM
Keith Olbermann delivered a rousing, emotional, 6-minute special comment on Prop 8 Monday night. Olbermann, who has never married, vehemently disagrees with its passage and the ban on gay marriage.
"I am not personal vested this," he said, "yet this vote is horrible. Horrible... This is about the human heart." After going through the history of marriage in the United States, and reminding viewers not only that marriage between black and white people used to be illegal in 1/3 of the country, but illegal between slaves, he made a plea for love and the spread of happiness.
"The world is barren enough... with so much hate in the world, so much meaningless division... this is what your religion tells you to do?... this is what your heart tells you to do?... You are asked to stand now on a question of love."
inally tonight as promised, a Special Comment on the passage, last week, of Proposition Eight in California, which rescinded the right of same-sex couples to marry, and tilted the balance on this issue, from coast to coast.
Some parameters, as preface. This isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics, and this isn't really just about Prop-8. And I don't have a personal investment in this: I'm not gay, I had to strain to think of one member of even my very extended family who is, I have no personal stories of close friends or colleagues fighting the prejudice that still pervades their lives.
And yet to me this vote is horrible. Horrible. Because this isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics.
Story continues below
This is about the... human heart, and if that sounds corny, so be it.
If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not... understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want -- a chance to be a little less alone in the world.
Only now you are saying to them -- no. You can't have it on these terms. Maybe something similar. If they behave. If they don't cause too much trouble. You'll even give them all the same legal rights -- even as you're taking away the legal right, which they already had. A world around them, still anchored in love and marriage, and you are saying, no, you can't marry. What if somebody passed a law that said you couldn't marry?
I keep hearing this term "re-defining" marriage.
If this country hadn't re-defined marriage, black people still couldn't marry white people. Sixteen states had laws on the books which made that illegal... in 1967. 1967.
The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn't have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it's worse than that. If this country had not "re-defined" marriage, some black people still couldn't marry...black people. It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad story of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized, if the people were slaves. Since slaves were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child. Their marriage vows were different: not "Until Death, Do You Part," but "Until Death or Distance, Do You Part." Marriages among slaves were not legally recognized.
You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are... gay.
And uncountable in our history are the number of men and women, forced by society into marrying the opposite sex, in sham marriages, or marriages of convenience, or just marriages of not knowing -- centuries of men and women who have lived their lives in shame and unhappiness, and who have, through a lie to themselves or others, broken countless other lives, of spouses and children... All because we said a man couldn't marry another man, or a woman couldn't marry another woman. The sanctity of marriage. How many marriages like that have there been and how on earth do they increase the "sanctity" of marriage rather than render the term, meaningless?
What is this, to you? Nobody is asking you to embrace their expression of love. But don't you, as human beings, have to embrace... that love? The world is barren enough.
It is stacked against love, and against hope, and against those very few and precious emotions that enable us to go forward. Your marriage only stands a 50-50 chance of lasting, no matter how much you feel and how hard you work.
And here are people overjoyed at the prospect of just that chance, and that work, just for the hope of having that feeling. With so much hate in the world, with so much meaningless division, and people pitted against people for no good reason, this is what your religion tells you to do? With your experience of life and this world and all its sadnesses, this is what your conscience tells you to do?
With your knowledge that life, with endless vigor, seems to tilt the playing field on which we all live, in favor of unhappiness and hate... this is what your heart tells you to do? You want to sanctify marriage? You want to honor your God and the universal love you believe he represents? Then Spread happiness -- this tiny, symbolic, semantical grain of happiness -- share it with all those who seek it. Quote me anything from your religious leader or book of choice telling you to stand against this. And then tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, another one which reads only "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
You are asked now, by your country, and perhaps by your creator, to stand on one side or another. You are asked now to stand, not on a question of politics, not on a question of religion, not on a question of gay or straight. You are asked now to stand, on a question of...love. All you need do is stand, and let the tiny ember of love meet its own fate. You don't have to help it, you don't have it applaud it, you don't have to fight for it. Just don't put it out. Just don't extinguish it. Because while it may at first look like that love is between two people you don't know and you don't understand and maybe you don't even want to know...It is, in fact, the ember of your love, for your fellow **person...
Just because this is the only world we have. And the other guy counts, too.
This is the second time in ten days I find myself concluding by turning to, of all things, the closing plea for mercy by Clarence Darrow in a murder trial.
But what he said, fits what is really at the heart of this:
"I was reading last night of the aspiration of the old Persian poet, Omar-Khayyam," he told the judge.
"It appealed to me as the highest that I can vision. I wish it was in my heart, and I wish it was in the hearts of all:
"So I be written in the Book of Love;
"I do not care about that Book above.
"Erase my name, or write it as you will,
"So I be written in the Book of Love."
Good night, and good luck.
Posted by: John | Nov 12, 2008 3:04:59 PM
Posted by: G-A-Y | Nov 12, 2008 3:14:18 PMcomments powered by Disqus