Courtin' bias: Anti-gay side scoffs at our search for justice
Speaking of a lawsuit that The American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights have filed as a way of challenging Prop 8's merits (or lack thereof), the "yes on 8" side's general counsel, Andrew Pugno, has issued the following quip:
“The lawsuit filed today by the ACLU and Equality California seeking to invalidate the decision of California voters to enshrine traditional marriage in California’s constitution is frivolous and regrettable. These same groups filed an identical case with the California Supreme Court months ago, which was summarily dismissed. We will vigorously defend the People’s decision to enact Proposition 8."
Only problem? In saying that these groups have filed an identical case that was dismissed, Mr. Pugno is passing off yet another lie. The truth is that the groups filed a writ petition prior to the elections as a way of keeping the nasty initiative off of Tuesday's ballot. It's true that the court denied that attempt and let the proposition go forward. However, the court -- and this is the important part -- DID NOT RULE ON ITS MERITS. Basically they said that the anti gay side could go ahead with their lil' attempt to inscribe their names in the annals of unfortunate civil rights history, but they did not say that the pro-equality side's claims were without merit. The Supreme Court didn't take up what this elimination of rights means for the gays whose orientations they had previously granted a suspect classification.
Here, this is what NCLR's Shannon Minter has to say about the matter in a newly issued ACLU press release:
"Historically, courts are reluctant to get involved in disputes if they can avoid doing so," said Shannon Minter, Legal Director of NCLR. "It is not uncommon for the court to wait to see what happens at the polls before considering these legal arguments. However, now that Proposition 8 may pass, the courts will have to weigh in and we believe they will agree that Proposition 8 should never have been on the ballot in the first place."
But ya see, the "yes on 8" side is frightened of the courts because reasoned bodies of constitutional knowledge are far less easy to dupe than the public at large. So Mr. Pugno wants people to believe that these wacky gay activists are filing frivolous bits of frivolity. In his statement, Mr. Pugno also says things like:
"The ACLU/Equality California lawsuit is completely lacking in merit. It is as if their campaign just spent $40 million on a losing campaign opposing something they now say is a legal nullity. Their position is absurd, an insult to California voters and an attack on the initiative process itself."
And again, his logic is crapballs! We didn't WANT to spend 40 million. We wanted the anti-gay side to live their own lives and not spend 40 million dollars in order to f**k with ours! But they didn't. And since the courts did allow the ballot initiative to proceed, we had no choice to combat, Now that is seems to have passed (barring late counting of absentee and provisional ballots), we want to go back to the question that was never answered: Was the entire process bullshit to begin with? That's what this new lawsuit is about!
Will we, via court battles, be able to save California's anti-gays from themselves? That remains to be seen. However, attempting to do so is not merit-less. A meritless reaction would be to lie down and allow tyranny's unchecked reign!
*The "Protect Marriage" statement: Statement By Andrew Pugno, General Counsel of ProtectMarriage.com [Yes on 8]
*THE ACLU RELEASE: Legal Groups File Lawsuit Challenging Proposition 8, Should It Pass [ACLU]
Yeah, to point out that the motion was refused back in july (refused without comment, a very important detail) as if it speaks to the merit of the motion itself, makes this guy seem either incompetent or willfully deceptive.
Posted by: zortnac | Nov 6, 2008 12:36:06 PM
I think our next amendment should be to make it so that it takes more than a simple majority to change the California Constitution. I think it is ludicris that less than 500,000 Californians get to decide what is legally recognized for all couples in the State of over 37 million people.
I also think it is sad that Californians feel animals need more rights but gays should have less...
Posted by: Todd | Nov 6, 2008 1:14:30 PM
I hope his house gets swallowed by an earthquake.
Posted by: RainbowPhoenix | Nov 6, 2008 1:20:38 PM
The No on 8 people continually try to claim this is a “civil rights” issue similar to the struggles of the minorities in the latter half of the 20th century, it is nothing of the sort.
As a minority I was born a specific class of people whose rights were being denied. I did not Choose to be born this way and I cannot change my skin color or heritage even if I wanted to. Therein lies the difference, the homosexual has “Chosen” this type of lifestyle and can choose to change it, (unlike those of us born a minority or handicapped)
Some in their community haven’t decided (bi-sexual) but it is still a choice.
They made a “Choice” to live a certain lifestyle and now want us to grant them “Special Rights” claiming we are unfair, and are trying to use the Equal Protection clause as an excuse, this section does not apply to “Choice” it applies to those denied their rights, through no decision/choice of their own (minorities, handicapped etc) and cannot change it.
To grant them this “special right” which is Not a Civil Rights issue, we who have not made that lifestyle choice would become a discriminated class and to quote Senator Findstein “discrimination is wrong”.
Additionally the No on 8 people claimed this had nothing to do about religion, then why are they protesting the Mormon Church, they excised their “freedom of religion” and for that because they, (and the rest of mainstream society with Yes on 8 winning) have exercised our Freedom of Speech, now we are wrong!? So does that mean tolerance is ok as long as you agree with “their Lifestyle Choice”? but to disagree is Intolerance? They just showed what they claimed in their commercials it had nothing to do with intolerance.
Lastly giving if we do give them this “Special Right” then we need to remove the domestic partnership and civil union laws and require them as the rest of the heterosexual community to either marry and no longer claim these other special privileges (or grant them to the rest of society). If we do not repeal these laws then I as a heterosexual become a discriminated class, due to the fat that, if I live with my girlfriend and we are not a same sex couple, neither one of us can claim the benefits or rights of the other as the homosexuals can, and that again is what Senator Fiendstein claimed she was against “discrimination” and this would be discrimination in its highest form against all heterosexual society.
No on 8 is not about civil rights, its about “special rights” and choice.
I did not Choose to be born a minority, but they can choose a lifestyle
I cannot choose, they can. Choice should not be given a “special right” as they can choose to change.
Anne Heche is an example of that type of change, she chose to be a lesbian, now she has “Chosen” to be Heterosexual, she is a perfect example of this type of Choice
No to “Special Rights” and
Yes to Traditional Families and true civil rights to those who have No Choice
Posted by: ernie | Jan 23, 2009 1:51:24 PMcomments powered by Disqus