« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
11/20/2008
Taking on Randy, lie line by lie line
One of California's most prominent anti-gays, Randy Thomasson, is back today with his thoughts on the Supreme Court's decision to move forward with the cases against Prop 8. We will now deconstruct Randy's thoughts, looking at them bit by it. Enjoy:
"The court is playing with fire by threatening to destroy the people's vote on marriage."
No, they are playing with more rational toys than fire. They are playing with concepts like scrutiny and review in this game they like to call THEIR JOBS. And their threats? Not to "destroy" anyone's vote, but rather to make sure "the people" didn't unfairly destroy a right.
"The California Constitution clearly says that the voters have the right to alter the highest law of the land."
Not in an unchecked fashion. And we should all thank the person to whom we pray for that.
"It's the beauty of the American system of government."
Personally, we find protecting minorities from majority tyranny pretty damn beautiful.
"The four Supreme Court justices who unconstitutionally invented homosexual 'marriages' -- Ron George, Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Werdegar and Carlos Moreno -- seem to be ignoring the fact that the people get the last word, not the judges."
No, what they ignore are absurd ideas like this one, Randster. They ignore the ridiculous idea that they have no role here. They do and should have a role in ensuring ballot initiatives are up to snuff. And if you stop and think about the other possible ballot initiatives that folks of a different time could try to submit (ban Christian marriage?), we think you would be a little slower to attack the independent judiciary in such an unhinged fashion.
It should also be noted that Kennard was actually the one justice who ruled to deny these petitions, while three others (Baxter, Minn, and Corrigan) joined the majority on this one. So in terms of the "last word," it would seem to actually be 6 justices, not 4. If you're going to baselessly attack them, then attack them accurately!
"The clear reading of the constitution, as well as California's legal and legislative history, tells us there is a world of difference between a constitutional amendment and a constitutional revision."
Well clearly you have better glasses than scores of lawyers, intellectuals, and the six justices who moved this case forward, R-dog. Where does one find a pair of such insightful specs?
"Proposition 8 is a single-subject, voter-initiated amendment, not a legislature-initiated, multi-issue, whole-scale revision that alters many sections of the state constitution."
...is the issue that the court will be deciding. Thanks for the reminder, Rand-a-licious.
"If Prop. 8 gutted the constitution, why is it only one subject in one section of the constitution?"
Nobody claims it gutted the constitution. Gutted gay people? Yes. Thoroughly! But in terms of the constitution, we just think it proceeded in the wrong fashion. And beyond the revision vs. amendment argument, we also think that even if kosher on technical terms, it very well might be invalid on equal protection terms. We shall see how this all plays out.
"If Prop. 8 doesn't stand, then our constitution doesn't mean anything, the people's vote doesn't mean anything, marriage has been utterly disrespected, and judges lied when they swore to uphold the constitution."
AND SOCIETY WILL EXPLODE! FIRE WILL RAIN FROM THE SKY! CHILDREN WILL EXPLODE!!! AAAAAAHH!
No. If Prop 8 doesn't stand, then it will mean that this particular initiative process was flawed, the people didn't have the right to act like a fire-wielding mob with free rein, same-sex marriages are not to be disrespected, and judges are willing to put their necks on the line for what is right and fair.
"Prop. 8 must stand, because the constitution is above the judges, not the other way around."
We think they are aware of this. They all did, after all, spend their lives learning as much as one can possibly know about law. Stop acting like they make up a rogue band of unreasoned gypsies who are judges not because they are smart and qualified, but rather because they have a robe fetish!
"Marriage is, was, and should always remain a natural, beautiful relationship between a husband and a wife."
No it's not, wasn't, and never again will be.
"Marriage between a man and a woman is an essential, beneficial role model for children to emulate."
Perhaps, If those children are heterosexual. But not everyone is. It's disgusting that you "pro-fams" refuse to acknowledge the true spectrum of humanity. Grow up.
"Fortunately, the California Constitution tells us 'all political power is inherent in the people' and that 'they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require'" (California Constitution, Article II, Section 1)."
Again, not in an unchecked fashion! And Randy, you know this. You know that the public is not free to pass anything under the sun. You know that the courts have a history of correcting historical wrongs. You know that the judiciary is only seeking to evaluate the initiative and its not process, not "attack" anyone. But you also know that your side's only leg to stand on is to enrage the populace by telling them that the courts are out to get them. This idea is throughly dangerous to gays, straights, and the American way.
Fin.
Your thoughts
I love that many of these fundamental Christians want to call what the CA supreme court did "unconstitutional." I would respond: there is a reason he/she/they are on the supreme court, and you're not.
Posted by: PW | Nov 20, 2008 9:38:53 AM
Randy and the lot just don't get it. They ascribe to "might makes right". They believe that since they are the majority, they get to make all the rules, that the Constitution only protects the majority.
What astounds me is that they willfully ignore history. The same arguments, some word-for-word were used against blacks, women, and other minorities. They were bad arguments, horrible reasoning, and that doesn't go away when they're used against gays. They don't magically transform into cogent arguments because they're now being used against gays. The arguments were flawed from the start. They made "sense" to some people who didn't think critically, or people who started from the notion that X is wrong, so whatever you do stop X people is fine.
Posted by: Jason D | Nov 20, 2008 10:27:55 AM
"The California Constitution clearly says that the voters have the right to alter the highest law of the land."
Oh, oh that's simply splendid.
I hope that as society changes and former majorities become minorities, and when the voting public decides that Christians should be denied...I dunno, their right to an attorney (a right that also exists because of a court ruling, Gideon v Wainwright), Randy is ready to accept it.
I hope he doesn't expect the courts to play their role and act as his last line of defense from the tyranny of the majority. After all, the voters have spoken. Nothing is sacred, and nothing is out of reach from a 50% + 1 majority of voters.
Everything is fair game. Again, splendid.
Posted by: | Nov 20, 2008 12:52:49 PM
"Marriage is, was, and should always remain a natural, beautiful relationship between a husband and a wife."
Tradition is not the proper basis to defend your arguments. Tradition is not always the way to go, and all things change.
"Marriage between a man and a woman is an essential, beneficial role model for children to emulate."
No, it's not. The role model for children to emulate is an "authoritative" parent; people who pay attention to their kids, who pay attention to their needs, who are lenient, yet still willing to impose restrictions to keep their kids safe. Study a little psychology, sir, and you're learn that marriage is NOT a requirement to raise good children, or to teach them proper role models. If being married was a requirement for this, then single-parents would be considered neglectful and their children taken away.
Posted by: Tyler Zilkie | Nov 20, 2008 4:40:09 PM
comments powered by Disqus
