RECENT  POSTS:  » NOM spends six figures on North Carolina's Hagan/Tillis US Senate race » Idaho wedding venue can be discriminatory so long as it sticks to new business model » Sunday in Houston: Activists mad that churches were noted for their politicization head to a church—to politicize » 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'  

« 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