This from our ol' two step partner, Mags Gallagher:
When this trial began I told you: gay marriage activists were putting 7 million Californians on trial. . . . explaining how intellectually absurd it is to conduct a “trial” into the subjective motivations of 7 million voters, constitutionally speaking.). But this week it got worse: They are clearly putting
Christianity itself on trial. Why else have an expert read statements of Catholic and Southern Baptist doctrines into the record?
And why put a Stanford Prof. named Gary Segura on the stand to testify “”religion is the chief obstacle for gays’ and lesbians’ political progress.”
Could the zero-sum nature of the game be any clear? Rights for gays and lesbians, in their minds, depends on invalidating the voting rights of religious people when it comes to gay marriage, because their votes are influenced by their religion–i.e. bigotry.
Here’s their brilliant legal strategy: Ted and David want the Supreme Court to rule that Catholicism and Southern Baptism and related Christian denominations are bigotry.
(That’s why their next move is to subpoena –i.e. drag into court against their will–two San Diego Christian pastors who emerged as leaders in the Prop 8 fight, Pastor Jim Garlow and Pastor Miles MacPherson [sic]. Why should participating in democracy give somebody a right to drag you to Sacramento to court?)
Ted Olson and David Boies think they can persuade the Supreme Court that Science with a capital “S” proves the voters are wrong about the natural family. Then they want to pit Science with a capital “S” against “Big Religion,”
Putting Christianity on Trial [NOM]
Oh, Maggie. Myopic Maggie. Intellectually dishonest Maggie. Hellbent on starting a faith war Maggie.
The truth: No pro-equality activist wants to put religion on trial. What we are testing is the ability for religion to trump constitutional fairness in this shared country that we all call America! The same exact way we would be challenging faith-based views if they were used to justify civil unfairness towards ANY group of people. And Maggie knows this. She's not a dumb person. She just wants to confuse the issue, making it sound as if those pesky, militant gays hate God. The negligence is astounding. Her seeming non-concern for the ill effects attached to that negligence is even more startling.
Our side is not the one who brought religion into this debate -- their side is! There is simply no way that one can examine the Prop 8 case without bringing up the religious motivation, because it was 95%+ of what they used against us to form their case! Ignoring that reality would be like taking up a case on gun control and completely overlooking the bullets! We have no choice but to challenge the tools that they gladly and unabashedly placed in their own political arsenal. And if that makes the "protect marriage" crowd uncomfortable, then they should ask themselves why that is. is it that that they really believe that questioning the faith motivation is out-of-line? Or is that they know that those same motivations fall apart whenever "we the people" is applied to all rather than some.
Oh, and Maggie: Let's stop with the equally careless labeling of "the voters." Yes, 7 million came out for civil inequality -- but 6.4 million came out for fairness! They matter too.
Oh, and Maggie: What the hell do you mean by seeking a "right" to call Garlow and McPherson into court? The real question: What would possibly give them the "right" to proudly take lead roles in a campaign that robbed a right and was opposed by nearly half the state, yet not answer for their actions when those actions come under scrutiny?!
Oh, and Maggie: What about the many pro-equality people of faith?
And yet, as usual, so little concern for those religious institutions who want the freedom for the marriages they sanctify to be recognized equally.
Posted by: Evan Hurst | Jan 21, 2010 10:12:35 AM
She gets more absurd with each passing day. Yesterday, the Prop 8 defense attorneys argued that shouldn't have to produce documents related to the Mormon Church because they would be "revealing." The judge had to remind them that's the entire purpose of discovery.
Today, we have Queen Maggie of the Bigots (Motto: "Don't Call Us Bigots!") declaring that subpoenas are unfair. How does she think witnesses should be compelled? Presumably, any "person of faith" should be allowed to decline any court appearance they don't wish to make?
I just don't understand how these nitwits can argue against basic concepts of our justice system like discovery and subpoenas, but then turn around and condemn "activist judges."
Posted by: Mark | Jan 21, 2010 10:23:04 AM
Typical Christian tactic, claim horror at the baseless attacks on your religion when the reality is that nobody is even suggesting your religion is responsible. All the Olson & Boies team is trying to do is prove that animus was responsible for the passage of Prop 8 and that is becoming abundantly clear seven days into the trial.
They're also establishing a clear path to suspect class for gay people. This would mean the court has to apply the more stringent strict scrutiny to the arguments of the defendants.
Posted by: Tony P | Jan 21, 2010 10:41:36 AM
Awe....whatever makes ol' Mags foam at the mouth just makes me twinkle with glea! :o) Hell, I firmly agree that Christianity *ought to* be put on trial and held accountable for clearly violating the separation of church and state by getting directly involved in politics and laws that are being voted upon at the ballot. As far as Christians and Christianity is concerned, when political measures are concerned, they need to SHUT THE FRAK UP!!!
Also, ol' Mags aggravation with professional scholars and their secular positions is so aggravating, it makes me want to scream. Spin, Maggie, spin, spin! But, did you notice that she completely ignored the LDS Church as being among the "Christians" of whom she wrote?
BTW, about her "7 million Californians"; is that a reference to the total residents of that state, or ONLY those who voted FOR prop 8? Seriously, though, if Maggie expects to be taken seriously by non-Christians, she ought to make herself well versed in Logical Fallacies so as not to commit them as she so-often does!
'Course, Mags simply seems to "forget" that the SC Justice of Cali. ruled that the Gay citizens of the state were a "suspect class" which means that NO ONE reserves ANY "right" what-so-ever to vote on their freedoms due to the fear of animus; this is WHY we have a Constitution! Hasn't anyone explained this to you, yet, from a legal/ non-religious POV? Remember this sage advice, Mags, when declaring that you're not a "bigot": A bigot is as a bigot does! ;o)
But Mags...poor, poor Mags. Ted and David are not trying to have Christianity defined as bigotry in the extremist terms that you have set! In fact, i can see what you're aiming at, here: you are rallying your base with fear-tactics in an effort to score a helluv'a lot more illicit cash! Me also thinks that she senses the end is in sight for her bigotry... =D
Posted by: Wade MacMorrighan | Jan 21, 2010 10:58:30 AM
Incidentally, please keep in mind that Mags and NOM believe implicitly that ANY freedom or legal protections for Gay men and Lesbians is a direct threat to Christian belief systems and we must be squashed and preferably culturally (ie. popularly) shamed back into the closet and stripped of every conceivable legal right.
Posted by: Wade MacMorrighan | Jan 21, 2010 11:01:35 AM
Hey, I just heard that Judge Vaugn was initially asking a question to both sides at the outset of the trial if the State has a reasonable right to deny marriages between individuals of the same gender. That sounds like good news to me! :o)
Posted by: Wade MacMorrighan | Jan 21, 2010 11:08:47 AM
Oh, and the way in which Mags makes us seem "anti-religious", is a rather slip move found in all forms of bigotry that attempts to yield the effect that we are somehow intrinsically different and thus makes it easier for one to discriminate against us without a thought.
BTW, Jeremy, have you heard about whether or not our side will be entering into evidence any statistical data that shows that within any state and any district where an anti-Gay NOM ad was broadcast (or so I've heard) the rates of Gay bashings spiked through the roof?!
Also, Mags' and NOM's hubris is astounding, because it blatantly rejects all other religions except Christianity!
Posted by: Wade MacMorrighan | Jan 21, 2010 11:16:44 AM
A comment I left there but probably won't be posted:
How fitting you defend the Southern Baptists. Their denomination was founded for the sole purpose of justifying racism with religion, and now your doing the exact same thing with gay people.
Posted by: penguinsaur | Jan 21, 2010 11:44:09 AM
"Why should participating in democracy give somebody a right to drag you to Sacramento to court?"
Because, Maggie, no matter how repulsive it is to you, the majority, the courts are part and parcel of the type of democracy (a representative republic) under which we live. If you participate in this democracry you are subject to all of its checks and balances.
This concludes today's lesson in civics, Maggie, you may be quizzed on this in the future, take notes.
Posted by: SammySeattle | Jan 21, 2010 11:52:14 AM
Wade: I believe California has more like 22-33 million people (not sure which figure is correct...I should probably find out, being a resident and all). 7 million voted for Prop 8, 6.4 million against. She's completely ignoring the "will" of the other set of people who voted for equality.
Also, if those two witnesses are being "dragged" anywhere, I imagine it'll be to San Francisco. There's nothing up here in Sacramento at the moment, save for this rather frazzled soon-to-be law school graduate. ;)
Posted by: Aya | Jan 21, 2010 12:10:17 PM
@ Mark: "Presumably, any "person of faith" should be allowed to decline any court appearance they don't wish to make?"
Actually, if you'll remember the victim card that NOM kept playing in their gathering Storm vids., this is precisely what Maggie seems to believe, that people of faith should have total and utter exemption from the Civil Law!
Posted by: Wade MacMorrighan | Jan 21, 2010 12:23:42 PM
@ Tony P: "They're also establishing a clear path to suspect class for gay people. This would mean the court has to apply the more stringent strict scrutiny to the arguments of the defendants."
Isn't this already what the Cali. SC Justice ruled before prop 8, that Gays *are*, in fact, a Suspect Class; meaning that NO ONE has any right what-so-ever to vote on issues that explicitly targets them?
Posted by: Wade MacMorrighan | Jan 21, 2010 12:26:12 PM
@ Penguinsaur: If you are, in fact, correct then is mind-boggling that so many African Americans would, in fact, be Baptists! LUV Iowa recently bussed in a whole shit load of Baptists to protest their perceived "right to vote" outside our state Capital, and most of them were black!
Posted by: Wade MacMorrighan | Jan 21, 2010 12:29:44 PM
Jehovah's Witnesses, religious directives with regard to medical intervention: under no circumstances is blood, organ or tissue donation to be applied. Even in the event of preventing death.
JW's as autonomous individuals may refuse, but have no other authority over which to decide such for other individuals, whether fellow JW's or not.
It can be argued that said medical intervention is risky, and poses a physical threat, yet such intervention is also life saving and routine.
Do JW's enter state houses and persuade legislation to deny or ban such medical care for OTHER interventions based on religion?
Do JW's criticize restriction on their religious belief towards OTHER citizens, and non JW's AS a detriment TO their beliefs?
Are JW's allowed to pose political action against other citizens for accepting blood donation and so on?
Are ANY religions enforced, or is non enforcement of those beliefs considered a restriction that DAMAGES the religion or the individuals who practice it?
Is medical intervention OR marriage and the choice to have both considered vital to the health and well being of individuals who exercise the right to have them?
Is the right to reject them conferred on third parties?
Then WTF is Mag talking about?
I don't see JW's getting all hot and bothered that EVERYBODY but them can accept blood and organ donation.
So religious belief is a particularly irrational reason to exclude ANY citizen from the protections of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Just because your religious belief is protected.
THAT doesn't mean you can run roughshod over legal protected rights and call it lack of protection for your own.
If Mags wants religious belief to trump Constitutional benefits for others and so on...she doesn't want to live in America.
Posted by: Regan DuCasse | Jan 21, 2010 2:04:52 PM
So I went to the NOM blog related to this and made a few comments. Surprisingly, they let a couple of them through (though one took 2 hours to "review" and the other took 2 minutes!). But they deleted the one in which I told "L Marie" to do her own research and stop listening to the talking point put out by Maggie and her minions.
We wouldn't want people to think for themselves, now, would we?
Posted by: John in MN | Jan 21, 2010 2:09:23 PM
"Could the zero-sum nature of the game be any clear?"
Oh my God. Really, Mrs. Srivastav?
This is in NO WAY a zero-sum game, because anti-LGBT advocates have NOTHING to lose with progress in LGBT equality. (Except, perhaps, that the process of their biased opinions becoming socially unacceptable will be speeded as progress is gained.)
We, on the other hand, have our FAMILIES at stake.
Dear reader, if you know Maggie "Gallagher" (or if you are the meddling dame herself), please make sure she's aware of this fact.
Speaking of which. Jeremy, do you have evidence that any big wigs in the anti-LGBT movement actually do read your site?
Posted by: Harrison | Jan 21, 2010 3:12:47 PM
Also, guys, bear something else VERY important in mind--the trick that Republicans and the Media is playing: they claim that they are only "defining" marriage in their state as only legally applying to one man/ one woman unions, rather than stating that they are taking away peoples' rights and civil freedoms!
Posted by: Wade MacMorrighan | Jan 21, 2010 5:07:31 PM
I just wish she wasn't so darn sexy!
Posted by: homer | Jan 21, 2010 8:56:17 PM
I read her post in full and it's amazing - it's like the 50s again and we're the Communists! Vampires maybe. The concept of LGBT Christians, for example, doesn't seem to enter into her world. We are 100% Unholy Other. Now is it just me, or does she seem to be ratcheting up the intensity? It's like she's firing on all cylinders because she realizes that the end of her ability to maniuplate the law may be near. In the best of all possible outcomes - SCOTUS hears the case and rules broadly in our favor - she's out of a job. If you're following the trial online, Thursday was excellent. It felt like every bigot I've ever known got put on the stand and got skewered. Even if we fail in this particular legal venture, I'm relieved to know the truth is finally out there and it will finally be heard.
Posted by: ScottNH | Jan 22, 2010 5:54:10 AM
Since SCOTUS saw fit to break down all barriers to Corporations giving as much money as they deem to political campaigns, I think Congress should respond in the following manner:
1) Add 3 slots to the Supreme Court and fill them with Progressive Appointees (Congress determines the number of Justices on the SCOTUS);
2) Eliminate all Tax Exemptions for both Corporations and Churches, including 501(c)(4)s which would include Maggie's National Organization for Marriage;
3) Tax all political donations and advertisements by Corporations at 1000%.
Perhaps then, these people will STFU.
Posted by: Mykelb | Jan 23, 2010 6:10:19 PMcomments powered by Disqus