« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
07/30/2008
Wait, YOU'RE accusing someone of bias, Tony? Oh, that's cute.
Reacting to the news that the wording of Prop. 8 will now speak more specifically to the negative effects the measure would have on gays, the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins says California Attorney General Jerry Brown has "sabotaged the amendment's description in an obvious attempt to influence voters." In a piece that he sent around via email called "Don't Believe Everything You Read," Tony also makes the following claims and accusations:
[Jerry Brown] editorializes the description to state: "[Proposition 8] changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Fiscal Impact: Over the next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, like little fiscal impact on state and local governments."
Perhaps the most infuriating part of the new language is that it suggests homosexuals will somehow be deprived of a "right" to marry that does not exist (except in the minds of four activist judges). Brown speculates that there will be "revenue loss... in the several tens of millions of dollars," which is a totally unsubstantiated accusation. Knowing how the economy looms on voters' minds, Brown is using people's pocketbooks to prejudice them against the amendment. To cloud the issue with Brown's personal bias is simply indefensible. ProtectMarriage, the coalition on the ground in California, announced this morning that it will file a lawsuit seeking to block the biased summary from appearing on the ballot. We will keep you updated on the case as it develops.
Uhm, the right to marry doesn't exist "except in the minds of four activist judges"? Well that line of thought might work within "pro-family" circles. Those who respect the role of the judiciary, however, realize how deeply offensive it is to suggest that a legal ruling is only binding if it passes the evangelical Christian litmus test. And those who truly care about protecting American freedom and respecting this nation's system of operations will not only reject the flawed notion that these justices and this decision are "activist," but also the flawed and offensive idea that depriving California gays of their currently-legal unions constitutes nothing more than "marriage protection."
As for the financial impact? Well it might be an "unsubstantiated accusation" in Tony's mind to say that denying marriage equality would deny the state a fiscal opportunity. But it's quite easy for those of us who understand the costs of planning a wedding -- including this gay writer, who, due to his home state's feet-dragging, has already booked a pricey California wedding location and tonight has a phone call with a not-expensive California caterer -- to see the potential gold that marriage equality could bring to the Golden state. For the layman, it's a matter of simple economics. For a state attorney general, it's a fiscal jackpot that's almost as tantalizing as the humanistic windfall.
The truth is that Tony and his allies are SCARED SH*TLESS over developments like this, because they pull the mask off the always-flawed-yet-commonly-accepted idea of "marriage protection." That code word-laden, discrimination masking, falsely compassionate concept is the truly biased one here. Calling a potential historical misstep a potential historical misstep? Well that's just demonstrating an ability to recognize actuality.
Don't Believe Everything You Read [FRC email blast uploaded to our own server]
Your thoughts
You ARE?? That's big news! Congrats!
You realize, of course, that if you put up so much as a po box, you'll be flooded with toasters.
db
Posted by: dave b | Jul 30, 2008 10:41:56 AM
Yea, California in late April (fairness willing). If the negative force prevail in November, then we will move it to Mass. Most of our vendors are actually being understanding about that, willing to wave certain restrictions so that we can get full refunds on our deposits if the amendment passes. It is, after all, out of our hands.
We're having an engagement party here in NYC in mid-October. It's funny, we've been together and lived together so long, we actually have most of the usual stuff for which a couple would register. But for those curious lookie-loos, we are down for a few items:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/registry.html?ie=UTF8&type=wedding&id=3FWJGJS496P4C
http://bloomingdales.weddingchannel.com/gvr/guestregistrydetail.action?retailer_registry_uid=307053758&listby=dept
And of course in lieu of gifts, we are also encouraging folks to make a donation to the campaign to the combat Prop.8.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Jul 30, 2008 11:13:30 AM
"Knowing how the economy looms on voters' minds, Brown is using people's pocketbooks to prejudice them against the amendment."
LOL but the little faggot himself doesn't mind using voters pocketbooks, to prejudice them FOR the amendment AND make himself rich at the same time.
Posted by: Scott | Jul 30, 2008 12:02:27 PM
Do you have a link for making a donation to combat Prop. 8?
Posted by: Troy | Aug 8, 2008 4:46:55 PM
I am so sick and tired of Tony Perkins self righteous bigotry! Perkins is a brain washed, religious fascist who has absolutely no respect for the personal civil rights of GLBT people. He would rather that we just be invisible and deny us the very core of our being. CNN, MSNBC and other networks need to stop giving this man and FOF a free pass and platform to promote their sick anti-GBTL bigotry. The media needs to call Perkin's out on his bigotry.
Posted by: Benjamin | Aug 12, 2008 1:11:39 AM
comments powered by Disqus
