Thursday, August 5, 2010

Prop 8

A lot has happened since Prop 8 was voted on. A lot has happened since Prop 8 was over-turned yesterday. A lot of people stood on both sides of the issue and now a bunch of them that lost are spouting the bigotry again, and trying to scare everyone into feuling the culture wars again. I’m gonna break down some of my favorite quotes that have come up since the ruling was issued.

CONCERNED WOMEN FOR AMERICA:
"Judge Walker’s decision goes far beyond homosexual ‘marriage’ to strike at the heart of our representative democracy. Judge Walker has declared, in effect, that his opinion is supreme and ‘We the People’ are no longer free to govern ourselves. The ruling should be appealed and overturned immediately. Marriage is not a political toy. It is too important to treat as a means for already powerful people to gain preferred status or acceptance. Marriage between one man and one woman undergirds a stable society and cannot be replaced by any other living arrangement. Citizens of California voted to uphold marriage because they understood the sacred nature of marriage and that homosexual activists use same-sex ‘marriage’ as a political juggernaut to indoctrinate young children in schools to reject their parent’s values and to harass, sue and punish people who disagree. CWA stands in prayer for our nation as we continue to defend marriage as the holy union God created between one man and one woman.”
ME: Marriage is not a political toy. Really, this coming from groups like yours that use it as a wedge issue and make it a political toy when they feel threatened. Pick another position on this before I can start to take you seriously. K? Thanks.

NEWT GINGRICH:
"Judge Walker's ruling overturning Prop 8 is an outrageous disrespect for our Constitution and for the majority of people of the United States who believe marriage is the union of husband and wife. In every state of the union from California to Maine to Georgia, where the people have had a chance to vote they've affirmed that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Congress now has the responsibility to act immediately to reaffirm marriage as a union of one man and one woman as our national policy."
Me: So, using your rationale Newt – the next time you want to get married (to wife number 4), I want to be able to vote yay or nay and decide whether or not you’re able to. Pick another position on this before I start to take you seriously. Next.

BISHOP HARRY JACKSON:
“This is a travesty of justice. The majority of Californians — and two-thirds of black voters in California -- have just had their core civil right to vote for marriage stripped from them by an openly gay federal judge who has misread history and the Constitution to impose his San Francisco views on the American people. The implicit comparison Judge Walker made between racism and marriage is particularly offensive to me and to all of us who remember the reality of Jim Crow. It is not bigotry, it is biology that discriminates between same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples. To make a marriage requires a husband and a wife, because these unions are necessary to make new life and connect children to their mother and father. Judge Walker’s slur will not stand the test of time and history, we demand that Congress and the Supreme Court act to protect all Americans’ right to vote for marriage.”
Me: Since when did it become a core civil right to be able to vote on the civil rights of others in this nation? Someone obviously doesn’t remember the Jim Crow laws as well as he would like to you to believe as they resulted in separate but equal status under the law, which is why they were eventually struck down, AND why Prop 8 was over-turned as well. Might want to study up again, pick another position and maybe I’ll start to take you seriously then. Next.

FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL:
"This lawsuit, should it be upheld on appeal and in the Supreme Court, would become the 'Roe v. Wade' of same-sex 'marriage,' overturning the marriage laws of 45 states. As with abortion, the Supreme Court's involvement would only make the issue more volatile. It's time for the far Left to stop insisting that judges redefine our most fundamental social institution and using liberal courts to obtain a political goal they cannot obtain at the ballot box. "Marriage is recognized as a public institution, rather than a purely private one, because of its role in bringing together men and women for the reproduction of the human race and keeping them together to raise the children produced by their union. The fact that homosexuals prefer not to enter into marriages as historically defined does not give them a right to change the definition of what a 'marriage' is."
Me: Ummm…there are a few things wrong here, but lets start with your final quote – Marriage is a public institution. You said it not me. We are not asking for the church or religion to allow us to marry – we are asking for a state marriage. My brother and sister in law got married by a justice of the peace and my sister and brother in law were married in a church – both couples are married in the eyes of the state and the nation, even though they weren’t the same ceremonies. Why does the opposition always seem to confuse Religion and State/Federal issues? I’m not asking for religious recognition, I’m asking for my rights to be upheld under the law. And since when did we get to vote on marriage – other than gay marriage? If you get to vote on mine, I want to vote on yours. Pick another position before I can start to take you seriously and then maybe we’ll talk! Next!

MAGGIE GALLAGHER, former President (NOM):
"The ‘trial’ in San Francisco in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case is a unique, and disturbing, episode in American jurisprudence. Here we have an openly gay (according to the San Francisco Chronicle) federal judge substituting his views for those of the American people and of our Founding Fathers who I promise you would be shocked by courts that imagine they have the right to put gay marriage in our Constitution. We call on the Supreme Court and Congress to protect the people’s right to vote for marriage."
Me: I love that she uses quotes around trial, as if this wasn’t one, a farce and just something to waste people’s time and money. Does she feel that way because her side lost? You can bet that had Prop 8 been upheld she would have been praising the trial and the justice system. The founding fathers would not be shocked at putting gay marriage into the constitution. We did not and have not written gay marriage into the Constitution, which should be pointed out is a living document. What the judge did was uphold the Constitution that promises equal protection under the law for all citizens – not just straight white ones. Call me if you need clarification on this process, Maggie. It’s been a few years since I was a Poli Sci major, but I still grasp the basic tenets. And by the way, I don’t CARE what the views of the Founding Fathers were, I care what they wrote into law, and what they wrote into law was freedom for all and basic rights for everyone! You call on Congress to put marriage rights up for a vote? Really, Seriously? That’s rich. You’re asking for the ability to vote to take rights away from citizens of this country – now who wants to change the Constitution? Pick another position and get back to me before I can even start to take you seriously. Next!

These are the statement’s I’ll carry with me, thank you very much. They are truly understanding of the issue and what it means to the nation and to them personally. Why can’t more people like Cyndi and Judy get it?

CYNDI LAUPER:
"Gay and lesbian couples have long struggled for acceptance and the ability to marry the person they love and want to build a family with. Today's landmark ruling declaring Proposition 8 unconstitutional is a testament to the fundamentals on which this great country was built and validates that the discrimination gay couples face must come to an end. We as a society should be embracing these couples and helping them make the lifelong commitment to each other that many of us straight people take for granted each and every day. This decision is a major step in the right direction towards equality. On behalf of the True Colors Fund and the Give a Damn Campaign, I want to commend and thank Chad Griffin and the American Foundation for Equal Rights, the legal team headed by Ted Olson and David Boies, and the plaintiffs in the case, Kris Perry & Sandy Stier and Paul Katami & Jeff Zarrillo, for their leadership and courage in standing up for equality and fairness."

JUDY SHEPARD: mother of Matthew Shepard:
“These plaintiffs are law-abiding, family-oriented, tax-paying citizens whose privacy was invaded, and whose dignity was affronted, by a misguided and unconstitutional law. Their victory at trial shows that our courts still play a vital role in safeguarding the rights of minorities from majorities who misunderstand them. But more importantly, it proves the power of personal stories. Equal marriage rights are ultimately about people’s families, and during the trial, their personal need for legal recognition of their relationships came through loud and clear. After Matt came out to me, he once asked me if I thought gay couples would ever be allowed to get married. I told him I didn’t think it would happen in my lifetime, but it probably would in his. It’s so sad, and ironic, that it turned out the other way. But this case warms my heart, to think that his dream is still coming true.”

No comments: