RECENT  POSTS:  » Lisa Kudrow thinks my website title is modest, at best » Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded mission of destruction? » MassResistance's hilarious fourteen-point plan for reinstating marriage discrimination: Get really, really nasty » Concerned Women For America finally learns to call out anti-gay rhetoric » 'Rivka Edelman' responds to me via one of the most bizarre comments I've ever read » Just going to another vendor isn't always easy, isn't good basis for sound policy » Pat Robertson: People who believe in fair nondiscrimination law are 'terrorists, radicals, and extremists' » In which another anti-gay group forces politicos to Gladys Kravitz our way into one family's divorce drama » In 2008, the AFA was the same on LGBT rights as President Obama; and I was a flying unicorn » The Hitching Post plot thickens in a truly remarkable way  

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

07/09/2010

Oh look, Maggie's defiant. [:yawn:]

by Jeremy Hooper

She:

MAggie"Does this federal judge want to start another culture war? Does he really want another Roe. v. Wade? The simple fact is that the right of the federal government to define marriage for the purposes of its federal law and federal territories has been clear since the late 19th century, when Congress banned polygamy. Only an incompetent defense could have lost this case. We expect to win in a higher court."

-Maggie Gallagher

He:

"No, Maggie: That would be you who wants to start a 'culture war.' Your side created it. Your side fosters it. Your entire adult life has been built around taking things that should be non-issues, obfuscating their reality before the Jeremy-HooperAmerican public, and stirring up animus in the minds of any and everyone you can find so that rage replaces reason. We LGBT activists are living life -- you, Brigadier General Srivastav, are turning those lives into battles!

Look, the federal government does not have 'the right' to do
anything that is patently not right! And when principled people make a compelling, intellectually sound case for a certain ban's detriments (or in this latest DOMA case, just a certain part of it), the federal government *must* recognize that. DOMA is so clearly unjust, so clearly discriminatory that only the most agenda-motivated of ideologues would fail to see the constitutional problems it poses. Either an agenda-motivated ideologue or someone who earns a paycheck by cultivating the same. If there's a difference.

Chalk this latest DOMA win up to an incompetent defense all you want, M.G. Dig in your sensible heels and put on a stiff upper lip if you wish. But we who experienced this win yesterday are not even getting overconfident, as this case still has a winding ways to go. So I would caution you about getting overconfident in the face of what was a clear defeat for your cause, both in terms of legalese and layman's straightforward sense.
"

-Jeremy Hooper



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


Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails