RECENT  POSTS:  » Nine former water-carriers for 'ex-gayness' join all credible scientists in denouncing 'ex-gay' propaganda » The operative word is 'yet' » Video: Tony Perkins for politically-driven pastors to test (if not run afoul) tax exempt status » Ruth Institute (former NOM affiliate): Same-sex marriage is as much of a wedge as interracial marriage bans » NOM finally admitting that marriage amendments are, in fact, bans » Kentucky's big anti-LGBT org hopes to pray away a fair court ruling on civil marriage » Iowa's governor sponsoring anti-gay Family Leader summit? » Head of Virginia's top anti-gay org: One mean email proves 'the left' is sexist, intolerant » Video: Ohio should be so lucky to have married couples as adorable as George Henry » GLAAD: Q&A with former 'ex-gay' activist Yvette Schneider: 'I’ve never met an 'ex-gay' man I thought was not still attracted to men'  

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

07/13/2012

Heaven hath no fury like a New York rights-stripper legally scorned

by Jeremy Hooper

In truth, the lower court judge said this:

Screen Shot 2012-07-13 At 10.29.02 Am

Judge Wiggins did not rule on merit at all—he simply said that the anti-equality forces challenging New York state's marriage law could move forward with their case. But now listen how the head of one of those forces, Jason McGuire from the so-called New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms ("A group dedicated to influencing legislatures for Jesus Christ"), responds to the matter now that his baseless case actually has lost on its merits in state appellate court:

"After winning our first round, the state appealed it," he recaps. "It went to the Fourth Department Appellate Division in Rochester, New York, and the appellate division ruled against us, rejecting the lawsuit concerning the legality whereby same-sex marriage was passed …"

But McGuire is particularly troubled by one part of the ruling.

"The court, I think, allowed some of its political leanings to be seen when it said that even if the court was to rule that the state had been in violation of open meetings laws, it still would not have annulled all of the same-sex marriages that had occurred," the NYCF executive director offers. "That really should be a concern for all people, because it indicates to us that even if a law is passed illegally, the courts would allow it to stand."
[One News Now]

"After winning our first round"?! That's a total lie! They "won" nothing other than a chance to have a day in court. Many of us on the right and fair side of history were quite okay with that (self included), since we (a) knew this case was without merit and (b) thought the aggressively anti-LGBT Liberty Counsel might actually help our movement by saying something truly outrageous in court. I honestly don't know any equality voice who was intimidated by the earlier non-win.

But now that he actually has had a high profile loss and his dream of taking away loving couples' publicly accepted civil rights is destroyed, McGuire is trying to save face. He's acting as if his team has both won one and lost one on equally-footed grounds, with the second loss (the actual loss) being politically-motivated. It's just more of the same disingenuous game-playing we always see from the self-appointed "values" crowd—a movement where, unfortunately, bearing false witness seems to get a pass as long as that bearing is designed to make the political efforts seem palatable.

The bottom line: New York has marriage equality. New York will always have marriage equality. New Yorkers are happy with marriage equality. Those are the facts. All the rest is noise.

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