RECENT  POSTS:  » I'm pretty sure Maggie Gallagher just called the National Org. For Marriage ineffective » 379 companies that want their logos paired with uplifting music in inevitable marriage (in)equality documentaries » NOM affiliate group to give Roy Moore a 'Letter from Birmingham Jail Award' » Save the Date: SCOTUS to hear history-making marriage cases on April 28 » Wall Street's biggest put stock in equal bonds » Gross: Tony Perkins makes some sort of 'ugly baby' joke at Hillary Clinton's expense » Really, suddenly contrite Ben Carson? Because you were pretty cocksure before! » ADF links A-Rod's drug suspension with florist's anti-gay discrimination; huh?! » NOM: Marriage means putting choking hazards on your baby's toes » Video: Ben Carson is apparently one felony conviction away from fellating a man  

« 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