Our Communications Director Thomas Peters released a brief statement to the media as the news broke yesterday that President Obama has reversed himself once again on marriage by urging the Supreme Court to strike down Proposition 8:
"We expect the Supreme Court to exonerate the votes of over 7 million Californians to protect marriage. The President is clearly fulfilling a campaign promise to wealthy gay marriage donors. There is no right to redefine marriage in our Constitution.”
His statement was picked up by the Associated Press, the Drudge Report, Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, ABC News, Foxnews.com, NPR, and dozens of other media outlets.
Peters will be on CNN tomorrow morning at 8:15AM to add more comments.
We continue to urge all supporters of marriage at this critical time to make plans now to come to Washington, D.C. for the March for Marriage on March 26, the day the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the Proposition 8 case.
36 Comments
"Exonerate?" Hyperbole much?
Most Californians want marriage equality, and all Californians have the rights of marriage; some can't call it marriage. We're arguing over a word??? Somehow I don't think the SCOTUS is going to let people use a word or not, based on their sexual orientation. What's next, only gay people are allowed to use the word "marvelous"?!
Reminder: we don't have to take crazy people seriously in crafting public policy!
Have pseudo-marriage advocates taken over this blog? Why is it that real comments from marriage supporters vanish, while senseless comments from the opposition go right through?
"Reminder: we don't have to take crazy people seriously in crafting public policy!"
Yep, that's what I would say, Robert
But, who decides who is crazy? You? Are you out of High School, yet?
Prop-8 has to do with voters voting on a California proposition, a right they have. I'll tell you who decides who is crazy - the Supreme Court, and 9th District Court of Appeals gets corrected most often. if they exonerate Prop-8, then it is you who's crazy. Not looking good for you.
You forget citizens have the right to control their government when it is not doing what it was elected to do.
There is no way the court is going to ignore the will of the people or the democratic process.
If the definition of a word is not important, Robert, why are you so hell bent on getting it redefined?
what about the 6.8 million voters who supported marriage equality in California....oh....crickets....
If support for redefining marriage is so strong in CA, why haven't enough signatures been gathered to put it back on the ballot?
Trust me, there are far more people who will work hard to preserve marriage than there are those who will work hard to redefine it.
"there are far more people who will work hard to preserve marriage than there are those who will work hard to redefine it."
I'd love to see some evidence for that!
". . . The President is clearly fulfilling a campaign promise to wealthy gay marriage donors. . . "
This is it, in a nutshell. I would not mind it so much if I believed Obama really was for SSM. I don't think he ever was, nor is he now. But he is willing to compromise his beliefs for what his advisers claim is expedient and even urgent.
"what about the 6.8 million voters who supported marriage equality in California"
those six-point-eight-million should appreciate that their votes counted; even if it where for a losing effort. If my vote were to be deemed superior because I was on the "right side of history" I would immediately switch sides.
But, then again, I'm not scum.
"What about the 6.8 million voters who supported marriage equality in California"?
They can try again, but their own Democrat government put a stay on the whole matter
(dumb) Otherwise, they could, by now, maybe already voted for an alternate proposition.
Now, you see, they've lost control of the matter of prop-8, and it's in the hands of Justices who are not elected (in Obama's own words). . . Ups!
@Robert
"Reminder: we don't have to take crazy people seriously in crafting public policy!"
That's why I don't vote democrat ; )
@Flannoggin
"what about the 6.8 million voters who supported marriage equality in California....oh....crickets.... "
Their votes were counted, they lost. Now I could be a pompous jerk and go "nah nah nah nah! You lost! Ha ha ha!" like the left did when Obama won re-election but I'm much more humble than that.
add on: And more mature than to resort to the tactics of the left.
"Now, you see, they've lost control of the matter of prop-8"
You do realize that, despite losing two court decisions, the anti-gays risk getting same-sex marriage imposed on all 50 states, by appealing to the Supreme Court, right? Who, exactly, lost control of this matter?! Wouldn't it have been smarter to accept the appeals court decision, and just let California go gay?
History will not be accusing the anti-gays of having a lot of smarts, that's for sure!
You do realize that the perverts you pimp risk losing all credibility in SCOTUS; risk losing the appearance of authenticity they've spent billions to construct just for this one moment in time?
But just look who I'm telling this too; an individual who is convinced that the authentic laws of nature do not apply to him.
@Zack and and @Randy---your comments are appreciated, however they appear to be so nasty, angry and anti-gay (as opposed to pro-marriage) that they appear suspect to your supposed cause. I may be wrong, but really....the animus just makes any intellectual argument null. Blessings to you both.
I am reminded of this. No matter how many people urge the Supreme Court to Strike down Prop 8, urge them to strike down DOMA, and urge them to redefine the definition of marriage..we have far more..the Creator who made marriage in the first place. And as long as we keep fighting, He will fight with us.
Yes, Prop-8 will risk appealing to the Supreme Court. Because it is not much of a risk. But don't take my word for it. Just wait a few months. . .
"same-sex marriage imposed on all 50 states" - you said it: "imposed"
Plus history is not a person who can accuse. But, i'd like to be accused of having a lot of smarts. Thank you, thank you. You won't be accused, sorry.
It will be comical to watch the anti-gays as they point fingers at each other after the Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage across the country. That amicus brief from the Westboro Baptist Church should have worked!
Lets be clear on this; my opposition is to the bastardization of language so as to lend a greater appearance of acceptability to decadent behavior.
The words SSM supporters use in support of their decadence are bastardized; ripped from their very meaning because it is believed that these words lend an appearance of acceptability to their depravity; to their decadent behavior.
Psychiatrists have admitted that they no longer exist to protect society from these sociopaths; they are now dedicated to protecting these sociopaths from society.
Or to use the words of the APA; our concern is for the health and well being of our patients.
I should remind everyone that the U.S. Supreme Court typically does not get too far ahead of either public opinion or the law in the majority of states. For example, few states still had laws requiring racial segregation or outlawing interracial marriage by the time the Court struck those laws down. Most states had already struck down or repealed their own laws against same-sex intimacy when the Supreme Court invalidated Texas’s law in Lawrence. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one of the most liberal members of the court, has indicated that it is counterproductive for the Court to go "too far too fast." Although she tirelessly defends abortion rights, she has still said that "[t]he court bit off more than it could chew" when it decided Roe v. Wade.
It is highly unlikely that the Supreme Court will overrule 32 state constitutional amendments defining marriage as being between one man and one woman and 32 referendums and force gay marriage on everyone. Any lawyers bringing such a case before the Court will need favorable votes from five of the nine justices. Yet as Constitutional law scholar Andrew Koppelman put it, "When I try to count the votes in favor of same-sex marriage on the Supreme Court, I have trouble getting to one."
Those 7 million Californians don't represent a majority of the 38 million California residents, a majority of eligible voters (approximately 24 million), and even falls far short of a majority of registered voters (ca. 18 million).
All the more reason why people's rights shouldn't be subject to a popular vote in the first place.
@John B, a right? A right to incest, a right to child molestation, a right to financial benefits because of my lifestyle? I'll vote on that nonsense any day of the week.
Will Fisher, the hyperbole is all in the baldfaced lie that the marriage idea is hateful or that support for the union of husband and wife is anti-gay animus. The truth is that if the high court rejects the accusation against the voters who approved the CA marriage amendment, then, those voters, wrongly accused by the SSM side, will be exonerated.
SSMers blame voters for hate and so forth but the marriage idea is worthy of societal support. The SSM idea is a very weak replacement that merits no special status. T is not the equal of the marriage idea. Ts supporters push the primacy of gay identity politics but that stuff is irrelevant to the marriage idea. Society may discriminate between marriage and other stuff. Marriage law is for marriage and not the other stuff. This is obvious and, obviously, is neither hateful nor unjust.
The SSM accusation against the voters of CA is hyperbolic. Much.
The quote in the headline of this blogpost, not so much. It is plain talk.
Chairm, the comments posted each and ever day on this blog--some of them on this very page--have demonstrated, over and over, that this is all about anti-gay animus. You're not "supporting", "protecting", or "defending" marriage by opposing somebody else's, and certainly not by insulting and vilifying gay people.
An awful lot of hateful and often personal invective has been directed at me by people who know nothing about me, and whom I have been very careful to treat with civility while offering facts and a differing viewpoint.
Just wanted to mention that Prof. Lopez has a new piece out in American Thinker. He agrees with marriage supporters that children deserve a mom and dad. Shockingly, nobody wants to hear what he has to say about being raised by lesbians:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/four_tiers_of_failure_how_the_lgbt_lobby_dominates.html
That is actually a misrepresentation of your opponents' position.
Its not someone else's [marriage] that is being opposed as you implied.
Rather, its someone's [alternative form of public marriage] that is being opposed.
If I oppose allowing [threesome marriages] between two lesbians and one man, that is not opposing "someone's else's marriage."
Its opposing [a form of marriage].
The same applies to opposition to [same sex marriage].
Its [an alternative form of marriage] to traditional marriage that is opposed.
And to oppose [alternative forms of marriage such as threesome marriage or same sex marriage ] is to also defend traditional marriage.
Your judge of character could use improvements if you think my comments were "anti-gay" flanoggin.
John B.:
That's what i would say too, but because i oppose SSm and SS civil unions. It's analogous:
"An awful lot of hateful and often personal invective has been directed at me by people who know nothing about me, and whom I have been very careful to treat with civility while offering facts and a differing viewpoint.
Yep, so true. . .
Having fought this thing in California (won), Maine (won), North Carolina (won) and New York (lost, got utterly disgusted)..........
All I can say is thank God it has finally gotten to SCOTUS.
Let us see at long last whether the American experiment is dead, or not.
If it is, so be it.
Civilizations come and.....once they embrace homosexuality.....go.
It is either our time, or it isn't.
Let's get this over with.
The challenge with that Rick is that "homosexuality" is just another word these heathen bastardized in their quest to lend an appearance of acceptability to their depravity.
They do seek to destroy civilization though; to destroy everything that leaves them with a sense of guilt so they can enjoy their decadence in peace.
It is who sociopaths are and it is what sociopaths do.
@27: And here is an interesting quote from Prof. Lopez' blog regarding the approach of using the 14th amendment to approach SCOTUS:
"I have already documented in copious articles and posts the extent to which the LGBT lobby has squelched good-faith inspection of the gay marriage claim to the Fourteenth Amendment. I will not reprise such complaints here. I would like to remind readers of this blog, however, that the amendment preceding the Fourteenth bans "slavery" in all forms, and this amendment, glorified in Spielberg's Lincoln, cannot survive if gay marriage becomes protected under the Fourteenth.
Allow me to explain in simple terms: Gay marriage equality means that motherhood and fatherhood are effectively removed as a legal principle from the entire nation's judicial system. With gay marriage equality decreed by the Supreme Court, there is no way for any state to express investment in the rational desirability for a child to be under the "custody" of those who conceived the child.
Instead, in order to comply with the Fourteenth Amendment, children would be placed under the control of two adults who acquired their rights to the child, either by taking it from someone else, uncompensated, using the force of the state; or by purchasing the child. In the former means, the government becomes the means to pirate human bodies from their natural guardians, while in the latter means, human beings are being bought and sold. In either case "slavery" is occurring, with very predictable social ills."
John B. please cite from this discussion the instances that qualify, in your view, as
a) "anti-gay animus" or
b) "insulting" or
c) "vilifying" or
d) or "hateful" or
3) "invective"
Do you agree that immorality is a perversion of morality? Do you agree that people can and do consent to immoral behavior and immoral aims?
I would expect that your answers would be yes to these two questions. Please correct me if you disagree.
John B?
Will Fisher?