« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
04/17/2009
Sprigg's VT blame game (emphasis on game)
Many have tried. Few, however, can twist and spin like the Family Research Council's Peter "let's export homosexuals" Sprigg.
In a new post to FRC's blog, Sprigg builds a multi-layered attack on Vermont, wherein he blames gays for "desensitizing" the legislature, the court system for emboldening the gays nine years earlier, and the entire process for being "anti-democratic" (since it doesn't begin and end at majority tyranny). Enjoy:
Yes, We Can . . .
. . . blame activist judges for same-sex marriage in Vermont.
Although advocates of homosexual "marriage" had succeeded in overthrowing the natural definition of marriage in Massachusetts, California (briefly), Connecticut, and most recently Iowa, they have had to live with the albatross that it was only through the judicial usurpation of the legislative function that they had achieved this anywhere. Not one state had ever enacted same-sex "marriage" through any process that could be described as democratic.
Vermont has changed that. On April 7, the elected Vermont legislature succeeded in overriding a gubernatorial veto of a bill to grant civil marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Homosexual activists have gloated that, at long last, they have achieved a victory that we conservatives cannot blame on "activist judges."
Their historical memories are too short.
Let's remember that the Vermont Supreme Court, in a decision issued late in 1999, was the first in the nation to rule that same-sex couples must be granted 100% of the legal rights and benefits of marriage under state law. Only under the coercive pressure of this ruling did the Vermont legislature, in 2000, coin the now familiar term "civil unions," in order to comply without actually changing the definition of "marriage." And it was only because Vermont had already experienced nine years of desensitization, under the court-imposed counterfeit of "civil unions," that the legislature finally capitulated to the demands of homosexual activists to be granted the word "marriage" as well.
Keep reading...Yes, We Can . . . [FRC]
Now, of course Sprigg never considers that the Vermont court, like others than have since followed, actually acted in fair accordance with the law. And whether or not he agrees with the ruling, he never considers that the nine years of civil unions was less of a "desensitization" and more of an eye-opening time in which Vermonters saw first hand (a) how benign gay partner recognition truly is, and (b) how unfair it is to stop short of anything but FULL equality. To Mr. Sprigg, it all begins at the "activist judge" straw man, and it will never end until he gets his faith-based way. His version of homosexuality will always involve "lifestyle"-"choosing," and his version of constitutional fairness will always be anything but.
Well to that, we say: Yes you can...blame "activist judges" for same-sex marriage in Vermont, Mr. Sprigg. You can blame whoever you will make you feel better about your chosen anti-gay lifestlye. But while you're doing all that finger-pointing, we'll enjoy the fruits of a society that is ever more fully pointing towards fair-minded progress. And in doing so, we'll look to the Vermont legislature as a perfect test case for how courts and legislatures can work in tandem to DEMOCRATICALLY lead us towards that brighter day.
Your thoughts
They like to conveniently forget that here in California the legislature twice passed same-sex marriage legislation. But we had the (now newly-converted) Albatross-inator Schwarzenegger as Governor who vetoed it both times. The only difference being that we didn't have a veto-proof majority.
But, he does admit that civil-unions are a counterfeit (separate and unequal) version of marriage. So, he basically made the argument for exactly why the legislature acted.
Posted by: Dick Mills | Apr 17, 2009 4:53:54 PM
Could you tell your readers a little bit more about the WRERA which Bush signed into law, late Dec. 2008? It's interesting legislation regarding retirement pensions and benefits reverting to surviving partners in same-sex couples. This law highlights the social and financial inequities we LGBTQ people face. Why did Bush sign it? Is it effective yet? Does it satisfy gay activists? What are its shortcomings, if any? Why is there so little reporting on it?
365gay.com has one article on WRERA, so does the gayagenda.com. Neither offers much analysis. The Advocate.com's search engine produces zero results, whereas a search for "Broadway" churns out 704 results.
Many thanks for your informative blog.
Posted by: Coxygru | Apr 18, 2009 6:27:10 AM
Nice try, GAY, but I think your response to Sprigg missed the 2 key points:
First, his newfound position that civil unions "desensitized" the VT legislature completely undermines FRC's position on marriage equality. FRC is opposed to civil unions on the grounds that they are nothing more than counterfeit marriages that would bring all of the same social ills of gay marriage. If that were so, then after 9 years, VT should be experiencing societal collapse. Far from being desensitized, the VT legislature would have no stomach for gay marriage, and if anything would be scrambling to pass a constitutional amendment to prevent further harm to the family. That hasn't happened, and in fact, based on the state's actual experience with civil unions, the legislature felt comfortable taking the next step. FRC's position is refuted by reality.
Second, the people in every state in which gay marriage was adopted by judicial decision had an opportunity to respond democratically. In Hawaii and CA, they decided to reject gay marriage and amend their respective constitutions. In MA over the course of numerous election cycles, the people have continued to elect and re-elect legislatures who support marriage equality. Iowans and Vermonters will have the same opportunity to be heard in the next election and subsequent elections. The people always have the final word. Ironically FRC would deny that right to people in any pro-gay marriage state by imposing a federal constitutional amendment, which would deprive states like VT or MA the ability to recognize marriage equality, even if the majority of people in those states wanted it.
Posted by: Michael | Apr 19, 2009 1:59:54 AM
Michael: What do you mean by "nice try"? You simply raise more and different points -- they don't negate our own.
And actually, your first point about VT's reaction to CU's is pretty much addressed in the line about the nine years of civil unions being "less of a 'desensitization' and more of an eye-opening time in which Vermonters saw first hand (a) how benign gay partner recognition truly is, and (b) how unfair it is to stop short of anything but FULL equality.
If we don't hit on one thing in one post, we probably have/will in the tens of thousands of others.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Apr 19, 2009 8:47:06 AM
comments powered by Disqus
