Marriage Watch / Maggie Gallagher
NOM filed this letter regarding Rule 77-3:
January 27, 2010
Hon. Phyllis Hamilton
Chair of the Rules Committee
United States Courthouse
1301 Clay Street
Oakland, CA 94612
Re: Local Rule 77-3
Dear Judge Walker,
My objection to televising high-profile trials is not theoretical. It emerges directly from the experience of the attempt to televise the trial for Proposition 8. Two-thirds of the expert witnesses-people who had been willing to sit for deposition, to prepare testimony, to fly to Sacramento to testify-dropped out under the prospect of having their faces and names televised. I understand their reluctance, because I know (personally) the kind of hatred and threats that adopting a high-profile position against gay marriage now generate. Many people I know who had a low profile-donors of a few hundred dollars or less-unexpectedly faced a tidal wave of hate that has impacted their personal and professional lives. People I know have been attacked on the street for holding up a "Yes on 8" sign, received death threats, and lost their jobs.
The price of participating in a trial should not be the willingness to tolerate even a minimum of reasonable threats to one's livelihood or personal safety.
The Supreme Court stepped in to prevent the broadcast of these hearings. But it was too late. Expert witnesses had already dropped out. The trial had been changed, forever, by the mere prospect of television broadcast.
Our case for Proposition 8 has been deeply harmed. The public record has been impoverished and the information available to reviewing courts permanently reduced all because some witnesses feared retaliation as a result of the publicity. I wish they had more courage, but I cannot view their fears as unreasonable.
The first purpose of a trial is to do justice to the litigants. As much as I would personally love to be able to see the Proposition 8 trial unfold in real time, I cannot contemplate the reasons why a court should subordinate justice to some other interest, whether it is public entertainment or public education.
The purpose of a trial is not to educate the public. It is to do justice to the parties the court has permitted in the court room. Where there is a conflict, or a potential conflict, courts must adhere to their primary purpose and eschew any innovations that threaten that purpose.
If television is ever to be permitted, it should only be when all parties to the litigation agree. Anything else is a travesty of justice, a subordination of the purpose of a court system to some other goal.
Here's the bottom line: If the Supreme Court should overturn Proposition 8 and find a constitutional right to gay marriage I will never know whether or not that would be a result of the haste to televise the trial.
And it is to no-one's interest that such a reasonable doubt should be thrown on the deliberations of the Supreme Court.
Sincerely,
Maggie Gallagher
President, National Organization for Marriage
90 Comments
My belief is they wanted to make it public so that they could sway public opinion on gay marriage. It seems that the arguments were mainly sensationalism, nothing of legal substance.
With all the sensationalism and few facts, it makes sense to believe it was meant to be a public lesson in gay relationships.
Loved the bottom "Bottom Line" statement. Go NOM we appreciate you representing us.
Great letter.
Dear Maggie,
This trial is payback for all the times you gleefully proclaimed victory for stomping on gay rights. But the truth is you NEVER won. And you never, ever will. Each time gay marriage is repealed it is nothing more than a setback until the inevitable happens when the lies and hate that you live your sad, pathetic little life by are swept down the current, just as discrimination against race and gender were decades ago. When that happens, and it WILL happen in your lifetime (assuming a house doesn't fall on you), you will be seen as nothing more than the opposition to another great fight for equality for all.
gay people face discrimination, physical violence and real murders due to their orientation weekly. no one on the opposing side has ever been actually murdered. you claim the majority favors your opinion so where does this fictional "tidal wave" come from?
you got your trial without video and when you lose, it will be because of the inept and irrational case you made in court. this self-centered victimization is merely a smokescreen for your failure to make a valid case following the constitution and equal rights for all people. own up and stop whining.
hughman, are you setting the bar for hate at murder? What happened to marriage supporters was found by the court to be substantiated, and tellingly, the proponents made no effort to show that the other side suffered whatsoever after the passing of prop 8 at the hand of marriage supporters. Nice try on the victimhood, but you can't hide from the kind of "tolerance" gay activists showed against the individuals, family and property of those who support marriage and families.
TC - any examples except for the one shouting match in the Castro where ONE sign-holder was yelled at? Maggie claims to know about loads of discrimination - attacks on property, etc. - can we have real citations please? Google finds none. We can "show" all the intolerance we want - we're the ones being denied marriage rights - you don't get protection from being yelled at. Again, welcome to America. Defend your position and prepare to have people who disagree be unhappy with you. Gays deal with that every day. Thousands of years of preaching about gays and sin and hell and punishment don't come close to a few gays calling you a bigot.
This is the price of an open and just judicial system: there are no secret witnesses, no anonymous testimony, no hooded judges. Exposing witnesses to public scrutiny insures both that those witnesses are speaking the truth and that they cannot hide their biases. Appearing in court means being willing to have one's statements and expert opinions questioned and potentially disproved. Justice is not possible without these things.
If witnesses for the defence in the Prop 8 trial were not willing to have their statements and opinions scrutinized, that only underscores how tenuous and impeachable those statements and opinions are.
It's interesting that since no one has actually been murdered (yet) in the aftermath of prop 8, the gay activist apologists on this thread seem to think whatever they do against marriage supporters is all ok. Anthrax, murder threats, vandalism, persecution......It's all justified because somewhere, in some other place and time, someone who was gay was also attacked. Here's the question. Is violence condemned by you? or not? Is it ok as long as it's the other guy who gets it? That kind of immoral stance is a putrid condemnation of your sincerity.
Bart, are you kidding me? The hate against marriage supporters is well documented on this site as well as others. Get an education.
I oppose all violence, including the made-up kind...again, citation for the anthrax attack?ANY citations, or are these just things you've heard about from Maggie?
Do you hear yourself? "We might have done bad things to gays in the past, but you should react nicely when we keep it up and fight you on every front."
You're not being tolerant just because you say you are.
Even if the issue of televising the trial had never come up the names and statements of those who testified -- for both sides -- would have been public knowledge. You can't hide from the truth, and you can't hide from those you accuse or from those whose rights you seek to take away, and nor should you be able to.
Bart, "Again, welcome to America. Defend your position and prepare to have people who disagree be unhappy with you. "
California, Maine, New York, New Jersey.......
Who is it that can't defend what they've done?
"“We might have done bad things to gays in the past, but you should react nicely when we keep it up and fight you on every front.”"
Bart, I don't know who you are quoting here, but no one at NOM or any organization I associate with believes what you are intimating. Including myself.
Google, third link down on "prop 8 persecution" search:
Study Details Gay Persecution & Intimidation Against Prop 8 Supporters
October 26, 2009
The complete study can be found here: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/bg2328.cfm
Abstract
Supporters of Proposition 8 in California have been subjected to harassment, intimidation, vandalism, racial scapegoating, blacklisting, loss of employment, economic hardships, angry protests, violence, at least one death threat, and gross expressions of anti-religious bigotry. Arguments for same-sex marriage are based fundamentally on the idea that limiting marriage to the union of husband and wife is a form of bigotry, irrational prejudice, and even hatred against homosexual persons. As this ideology seeps into the culture more generally, individuals and institutions that support marriage as the union of husband and wife risk paying a price for that belief in many legal, social, economic, and cultural contexts.
Why are the supporters of inequality filled with so much hate and anger? It bothers me when so-called religious people want to bend their beliefs in order to justify evil. When non-Christian religions do it they call it terrorism. When Christians do it they call it "love and compassion".
I also want to know what makes the Pro-PropH8 people "more equal" than the pro equality supporters.
‘Yes on 8’ supporters and religious leaders unite against vicious post-election attacks
Santa Ana, Calif., Nov 15, 2008 / 06:52 pm (CNA).- On Friday, leaders representing California’s Proposition 8 called on Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Senator Diane Feinstein and leaders of the ‘No on Proposition 8’ campaign to denounce attacks against citizens who support the constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
Leaders of the ProtectMarriage.com coalition and approximately 500 supporters of “Yes on Proposition 8” gathered in Santa Ana to voice their opposition to the increasing attacks and harassment against supporters of traditional marriage.
"Amidst all this lawlessness, harassment, trampling of civil rights and now domestic terrorism, one thing stands out: the deafening silence of our elected officials. Not a single elected leader has spoken out against what is happening,” noted the campaign co-manager, Frank Schubert.
“Where is Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger while churches are being attacked? And where is Senator Dianne Feinstein while people are losing their jobs and grandmothers are being bullied by an angry mob?" he asked.
Schubert spoke at the first press conference of the Protect Marriage coalition since the election, which saw Proposition 8 pass with 52.5% of the vote. Since then, hostility has dramatically increased against those who supported the measure.
Another leader, Pastor Jim Garlow recalled that, "For 14 months, we have been called bigots and hatemongers and we have not retaliated against these unprecedented attacks. But we will not be silenced."
Around California, supporters of Prop. 8 have been targeted by their opponents. According to a press release, in addition to church vandalism across the state, in Sacramento, a musical theater director was forced to resign after he was blacklisted for contributing $1000 to the initiative. In Los Angeles, a Mexican restaurant owner was boycotted after a relative donated to the coalition.
The most recent attack occurred yesterday when the headquarters of the Knights of Columbus and several LDS temples were mailed an unknown white powder, reminiscent of the Anthrax scare in 2001.
The white powder was tested on Friday and was found to be non-toxic.
The Associated Press reported that the FBI is investigating the white powder incidents because it is illegal to release a powder or substance to threaten harm and scare the public.
Equality, "I also want to know what makes the Pro-PropH8 people “more equal” than the pro equality supporters."
We are all equal. None are more equal than others. We all have the same rights, not special rights. You and I have the same right to marry as anyone else.
you use the "heritage foundation" for a source of prop. 8 intimidation? seriously? that's like calling glenn beck a journalist. many, if not most, of the incidents cited in that propaganda have already been proven false and inaccurate anyway and none of the incidents resulted in actual prosecutions of a hate crime. no wonder NOM lost if this is what you people use as evidence.
"It bothers me when so-called religious people want to bend their beliefs in order to justify evil. When non-Christian religions do it they call it terrorism. When Christians do it they call it "love and compassion"."
Equality, I find it interesting what gay activists call "love and compassion". I asked the question earlier, and no one has really responded. Do you condemn the hateful intolerance of gay extremists toward marriage supporters? Or are you bending your beliefs to justify evil?
@Samantha
And who's Civil Rights were trampled during this process?
That's right, the Civil Right of specific Californians to get legally married. Now only the Californians who are "more equal" can get married.
If you remember the CA State Supreme Court ruled that the ability to get married is a fundamental Civil Right. That is until the tyranny of the majority decided to take that particular Civil Right away from certain law abiding citizens, based solely on an inborn characteristic.
I hope that the majority doesn't decide that left handed people aren't allowed to vote. Or people with natural red hair are not allowed to attend public school. Or [pick any inborn attribute of yourself] is not allowed to [pick any legal right that you utilize on a daily basis].
Hughman, the hate perpetrated against these people might not seem like much to you, but it is significant to the people who lived through it. Those actions were meant to intimidate, harass and punish citizens for exercising their constitutionally protected rights. Do you support what these people did? Would you support it if it had been done to people who felt same gender attraction?
Do you not see the irony?
Equality, you are a hopeless extremist. Only extremists can excuse this kind of violent behavior.
If you don't like what happened at the ballot box, start sending white powder to the people who supported it.....maybe they'll change their minds?
Sorry. That just isn't how democracy works.
@TC: There may have been a handful of pro-equality people who _may_ have lashed out at some of the pro-H8 people. I do not condone it, but at the same time I can understand it.
Think about it. The gay community has been the target of hate their entire lives. So-called loving religious people target them with taunts, bullying, job discrimination, housing discrimination, gay bashings and legal discrimination.
Then the courts say basically "what's wrong with this picture, the constitution says everyone is equal".
Then all the loving Catholics, Baptists, Mormons, Hispanics, and Blacks, just to name a few groups, say we can't have this. They say we're going to use our majority to put these people in their place, who do they think they are asking to be treated equal.
It is reasonable to understand that under this kind of attack on their very existence a few individuals would crack.
Do I condone any _alleged violence_? No. Would I understand a few isolated incidents of lashing out? Absolutely.
What I do not hear on this discussion is talk of the property violence (theft and grafitti) and personal violence and threats of personal violence against the anti-H8 proposition proponents. "NO on 8" signs were stolen, stolen and used as weapons, homes and cars were painted, individuals harassed and called horrible names ... all in the name of religious values.
And for the record, boycots are a well known and many-times-used political tactic in the USA. Boycotting a restaurant is absolutely fair play. The director of the theater QUIT - he was not fired, he was not constructively discharged. He was dicovered to hold values in direct opposition to the other employees and volunteers of the theater. He quit because his continued presence would hurt the company. But NO ONE forced him to quit.
WHY are those againsr marriage equality afraid to come out of their closet? they should be proud of their bigotry and prejudice. In the 1960's, the racists stood up and were counted. Why are folks hesitant today?
Come out, come out wherever you are! We all want to know who you are!
Okay - you know what? Enough.
Do most LGBT folks condone violence against those who disagree with us? Hell, no.
We ourselves have been victims of violence our entire lives. We know that's not the way.
But think of any slight you received as a child. Any flaw that was exploited at your expense. Your hair color, wearing glasses, lack of physical ability....
Damn right, you'd be angry not to be accepted as an equal. But you manage and channel that into positive actions.
That's all most of us are trying to do - we just want to be equal in the eyes of civilization, no matter who we love.
I won't resort to accusatory tactics or violent rhetoric. Maggie has shown that - however misguided or bigoted some of us perceive her to be - that she is fighting for what she believes in. She has even stated that "almost as good as marriage" is acceptable - which is nice, but falls short.
But as for fighting to survive and evolve, so are we.
We are fellow humans - fellow travelers along life's path. We just want to be accepted and respected as anyone else in the human race. Afforded the protections that most enjoy without even knowing their privilege above others.
But part of that is admitting that, regardless of what we think of sexuality or race or ethnicity or legal status - we're all human beings together and we are all part of God's plan.
We exist and we are. And none of us have the right to judge another.
Do most of us care about changing religion... or centuries of belief? No. we simply want to be recognized for who we are and be treated in an equitable fashion under the law.
And before you answer, civil unions, as they stand today, or other mechanisms to approximate marriage...well, let's put it this way...
There are over 1,100 federal protections afforded to married people that are not afforded through a state-sanctioned civil union. A recent Chicago Tmes article profiled a same sex couple who had to spend over $10,000 to have the same "benefits" as a heterosexual married couple who spends nothing more than $40 for a marriage certificate to make their union binding.
If you can't see beyond the religion and belief systems that foster this bigotry - it's a very simple equation.
Those who have - the hetero-privileged - don't car eor feel for those of us who fall outside their experience. Because it DOESN'T AFFECT THEM.
Step outside your comfort zone and get in touch with the real world. We're hoping you'll see something that might challenge how you think.
TC: Each post youu type in this thread lets more and more of your Betterosexual egotism out. I dare you to say these things to a homosexuals face in public, you coward. People like you write such hateful and bigoted thikgs in these threads because you don't have the real balls to trot your self righteous str8 biggoted body into a physical arena populated with homosexuals and speak of the truth you believe to be the "right" way things should be.
You have yourself so cramed into whatever box you've been preprogrammed to think is necessary to get you away from the reality that homosexuals are people JUST LIKE YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yet, for whatever reason, you seem to think as an adult that is is still okay to bully people WHO YOU HAVE NEVER MET AND REALLY DON'T HAVE THE FIRST CLUE ABOUT!!!!!!!!
Looking inside yourself for answers as to why you think and/or feel the horrible way you do about people, you don't know btw, is something any psychiatrist and psychologist would be more than happy to help you figure out.
Again, I dare you to walk into your local gay/lesbian bar and toot your horn and see what happens. I'd love to be there to see what happens.............
Dear Vaughn: Letter to Judge Walker from NOM
http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2010/01/dear-vaughn-letter-to-judge-walker-from.html
That's right, we can't let the American public know the true goals of the pro-H8 agenda. Even Hitler took it slow against the jews. You gotta get the people used to the demonization little by little. Then, when the time is right, we round up all the fags and get rid of them once and for all. That is until the straight people raise the next generation and it will have to be done all over again.
TC and all the others who can't take 0.00001% percent of the hostility gays have taken for decades in this country shows the breathtaking depth of cowardice they try to hide. Quintessential bullies and classic right wing "they can dish it out but they can't take it." Grow a pair boys.
Tom, it's interesting to see that you have no problem with violence as long as it is aimed at those you disagree with. That may be great in your world view, but in mine, we are all equal, and deserve respect equally, regardless of any differences in belief or opinion.
I DO support violence against the Christian fascists who support, condone, and cultivate hatred and violence toward gay and lesbians each and every day. Telling children who might grow up to be attracted to the same sex that they can never have a chance at the kind of happiness marriage represents this is EXACTLY what you are doing.
equalityforall wrote:
[If you remember the CA State Supreme Court ruled that the ability to get married is a fundamental Civil Right. That is until the tyranny of the majority decided to take that particular Civil Right away from certain law abiding citizens, based solely on an inborn characteristic.]
And yet Black people, who started the Civil Rights Movement, voted FOR Prop. 8.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/18/a-marriage-mandate/
Clearly, the "civil rights = gay rights" argument no longer flies among the general public even among Black Democrats.
@TC Matthews
Yeah, TomSFO's mindset would make him a great fit for the KKK or a neo-Nazi group.
TomSFO wrote:
[TC and all the others who can’t take 0.00001% percent of the hostility gays have taken for decades in this country shows the breathtaking depth of cowardice they try to hide.]
Oh, please.
If you were an Iraqi engaged in homosexuality, you'd have a case. In that country, homosexuals are regularly shot, lynched, disemboweled or set on fire.
http://www.thenational.ae/article/20090503/FOREIGN/705029847/1002
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2009/04/threatening-fliers-against-homosexuals-in-baghdad.html
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=7448915&page=1
Interestingly, I don't see homosexual activists like yourself marching in front of the Iraqi embassy. Since you're SO brave, you should be glad to protest a country where homosexuals are killed on sight.
I get it: it's the Muslim thing. You're okay attacking religious folk who respond by turning the other cheek (e.g., Christians) instead of swift and blinding violence.
Typical bully cowardice.
Moving on, homosexual blogger Charles Winecoff weighs in on the Prop. 8 trial:
[Let me get this straight (no pun intended): we in the LGBT community feel we are entitled to majority-style state approval of our feelings and lifestyles – often against the will of our friends and fellow citizens (who, by the way, are largely in support of nice, secular civil unions, which can always be improved) - yet we refuse to relinquish an iota of our minority status. That ain’t going to get you what you want. Make up your mind, people.
Having grown up with the gay rights revolution, I can safely say it’s no longer the straight majority that has the problem with us. It’s the gay community that’s still hung up on “being gay.” How about dropping the adolescent security blanket of comfy persecution – and try being less of a Na’vi and more of a Marine? The rewards might be a lot greater than make-believe “marriage equality.”]
Read the rest of Winecoff's column, "Prop 8 On Trial: Bourgeois Moonbats Plead Sanity":
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/cwinecoff/2010/01/25/prop-8-on-trial-bourgeois-moonbats-plead-sanity-updated/
hughman, you discount the Heritage foundation link:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/bg2328.cfm
because you didn't even look at it. It is simply a compliation of links to news media such as The New York Times, etc. They are the ones doing the reporting about death threats, harrasment, and attacks by people who oppose prop-8.
Every time someone from NOM posts evidence of real harrasment and violence, the opposing side discounts it because they don't like the source. You didn't even look at the source.
Porter, "I DO support violence against the Christian fascists who support, condone, and cultivate hatred and violence toward gay and lesbians each and every day."
In a world utopia such as you suggest where violence toward one group is condoned and violence toward another group is eschewed----- all dependent of course upon whether your particular philosophy is in vogue or not, how do you propose to show tolerance for other's beliefs?
Fred, excellent quote from Charles Winecoff. I have to admit, the perspective is refreshing.
To the SSM supporters here, what does the SSM campaign mean by the slogan "NQHB"?
* * *
To marriage defenders, please let the SSMers answer for themselves. Thanks.
Its "NOH8" as in no-hate.
To TC and Fred and all of the others who are asking if gay and lesbians condone violence against the Yes on 8 folk, when YOU start calling out Fred Phelps and his clan, I'll gladly start telling gays and lesbians to chill out, not to take your signs, or make harassing phone calls, or punch someone in the face, or send white powder, or threaten to kill somone.
When YOU tell your fellow straight folk that the I-killed-that-faggot-because-he-made-a-pass-at-me murder defense is unjustifiable and wrong, I'll step up to the plate.
When YOU stop your fellow Christians from going into the Castro, and West Hollywood and Chelsea and Boystown and Dupont Circle and Midtown and all of the other gay neighborhoods to witness and pray and say, "maybe that's not the best idea, maybe gays and lesbians would like to be left in peace;" I'll gladly intervene protect that little grandmother's cross.
Do you condone these behaviors or do you find them reprehensible? I don't condone violence of any kind, but I can certainly understand the anger behind it.
@TC Matthews
"In mine, we are all equal, and deserve respect equally, regardless of any differences in belief or opinion"
"How do you propose to show tolerance for other’s beliefs?"
So does this mean you support GLBT people's right to marry the love of their life? And what have you done to show tolerance for their beliefs?
Maple,
I support everyone's right to marry. Everyone has the same exact rights I have. No more, no less, and I condone violence against no one. Tolerance is not about embracing someone else's morals and ideals. It is about allowing everyone else their freedom to choose how to live their lives.
"When YOU tell your fellow straight folk that the I-killed-that-faggot-because-he-made-a-pass-at-me murder defense is unjustifiable and wrong, I’ll step up to the plate."
Scott,
So let me get this straight, your violence is condoned because you've never seen people go to jail for persecuting others? You live in a society where violence against others is ok? I don't know what makes you think that marriage supporters anywhere on these threads or elsewhere think that violence against anyone else is ok. That's just sick thinking.
I support laws against violence. I support tolerance, true tolerance for others, the kind that allows for difference of opinions and ideas. I support peace. It's apparent that you do not, and that is what is truly sad.
To TC Matthews:
You say you support everyones right to marry. Does that mean you support everyones right to marry the person they love regardless of gender? If not, then it's not equal. Are you really in favor of gay men marrying straight women? Well, that happens often and usually leads to broken and loveless families. We don't need anymore Larry Craigs, Ted Haggards, etc. Lying about who you are doesn't sound very Christian, does it?
(a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.
(c) A surviving registered domestic partner, following the death of the other partner, shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon a widow or a widower.
(d) The rights and obligations of registered domestic partners with respect to a child of either of them shall be the same as those of spouses. The rights and obligations of former or surviving registered domestic partners with respect to a child of either of them shall be the same as those of former or surviving spouses.
(e) To the extent that provisions of California law adopt, refer to, or rely upon, provisions of federal law in a way that otherwise would cause registered domestic partners to be treated differently than spouses, registered domestic partners shall be treated by California law as if federal law recognized a domestic partnership in the same manner as California law.
Patrick, I do not support the neutering of marriage law. Changing marriage to suit the sexual preference of one small group is not fair or equal to everyone else. I'm against granting special rights to any one group.
No one is granted the "right" to marry the person they love regardless of any other consideration. There are many groups of people with relationships that do not meet the requirements for marriage. That is not to say that they cannot marry, we all have the same right to marry. We each have the opportunity to qualify for that institution, if we want to qualify. That is a personal decision. Marriage may not be for everyone. Changing marriage is not a right.
I just find it interesting how a bunch of activists who advertise NOH8 can be so willing to look the other way when the hate is directed at people they despise.
how about NOHPCRTE?
To TC Matthews:
The Supreme Court of the United States and the Supreme Court of California both disagree with you. They have both said that marriage is a fundamental civil right. They don't mention at all that it is only a right for heterosexuals. Treating heterosexsuals differently means that they are the ones with special rights. So, you say you are against granting special rights to any one group, yet that is exactly what you are supporting. You are supporting the special right of one group (heterosexuals) to marry. The Supreme Court of California had already declared marriage to be a fundamental civil right when they voted in favor of marriage equality. It was the tryrrany of the majority that reversed that decision. Do you think that interracial marriage should have been put to a popular vote in 1967? If so, it would have lost by a very large margin. The fact is many more Americans are in favor of marriage equality today than were in favor of interracial marriage in 1967.
I'm loving that article from Charles Winecoff that was posted earlier:
"Change.org, Couragecampaign.org, and other “progressive” grassroots groups were chomping at the bit over a promised live telecast of the proceedings, to be posted on YouTube.com. But at the last minute, the high court nixed the idea, claiming TV exposure could intimidate witnesses – and incite harrassment, even violence, against defendants.
Naturally, the HuffPo went ballistic: ”There is no evidence that those Prop 8 supporters who have publicly announced their opposition to equality have faced significant physical violence,” declared blogger Emma Ruby-Sachs, who must have been living under a rock in the fall of 2008, when Prop 8ers were blacklisted, forced to resign from jobs, had their names and addresses published online, and, worst of all, were coerced into donating to the Human Rights Campaign.
“Even if isolated incidents have occurred,” Ruby-Sachs rationalized, ”these do not come close to the physical threats and violence anti-gay rights advocates perpetrate everyday.” Agreed; the deadly fatwas against LGBTs emanating regularly (and unapologetically) from mosques as closeby as Canada are unacceptable.
Oh wait. You mean the Mormons, who recently backed anti-discrimination laws for gays in Salt Lake City. Sorry. My bad."
Does he know his gay activists or what? That bit could have come straight off this thread for all the NOH8 appologists here.
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/cwinecoff/2010/01/25/prop-8-on-trial-bourgeois-moonbats-plead-sanity-updated/
To Samantha:
Separate but equal is unAmerican. Do you want gay folks to drink at different water fountains as well?
some great comments too:
"As an overweight gay man, I going to petition the federal government to make it illegal for other gays to reject my well-honed sexual advances on basis of weight. It's hateful, discrimatory, and very bad for my self-esteem. Sure, it might seem a little unfair of me to hoist my wants on others regardless of what they feel is right, but hey. Them's the breaks."
Patrick, marriage is a right sure. Redefining marriage? sorry no.
"Separate but equal is unAmerican. Do you want gay folks to drink at different water fountains as well?"
You might have a point Patrick if marriage weren't already open to everyone. Not only is marriage open to everyone, equally, but there is a whole separate category set up if you want to have a non marriage relationship also recognized. Sounds pretty tolerant to me. You can do whatever you want, you can live how you choose, you can be recognized, you can have benefits, you can do anything....except call it something it's not. Marriage.
@ TC Matthews
"Changing marriage to suit the sexual preference of one small group is not fair or equal to everyone else"
Who would this change be unfair or unequal to?
@Samantha
I'm assuming then that you are fully supportive of Domestic Partnerships or Civil Unions that grant full rights to GLBT couples...
Then is it just the word?
Maple,
Changing the definition of marriage to include non marriage situations negates the purpose of marriage. You may not believe this, but marriage has a purpose beyond granting societal approval on a sexual relationship. Society has a self interest in encouraging men and women to join in formal ways for the benefit of children who may be created through their union. Kids do best with a mom and a dad, united for life, and dedicated to the family unit as a whole. Take that away from marriage and you destroy the institution because you negate it's purpose.
@ TC Matthews
"except call it something it’s not. Marriage"
Many GLBT couples do get married in places outside of California and they do call it marriage. Husbands can call each other husbands, and wives can call each other wives, and their children can say they have two daddies or two mommies.
Gay marriage does exist, and it is very real.
maple.....Actually I'm against civil unions and domestic partnerships, however, regardless of my personal stance, this is the reality in our state. So, be what it may, I am interested to see why all this fight over a simple word.
Marriage.
You certainly can't say it's about rights, because it's clearly not.
@TC Matthews
So you believe that the purpose of marriage is to benefit children?
Sure you can call it whatever you want, you can call yourself married even, but it's just dressup isn't it? Isn't that why there's all the fuss over the legal word marriage?
@ Samantha
But if it is "just a fight over a simple word. Marriage,"
then why not share it?
Why do you want it? Changing marriage has social, legal and societal repercussions I'm not sure we want. Why do you want the word marriage? Why is it so important to you?
@Samantha
The word married is important to me because then it does mean true equality. DP's and CU's are still separate but equal - it still promotes a form of difference, which I believe is discrimination.
But maybe I want it so that when a young gay teenager is thinking about their future love, they don't have to punish themselves, they can be just like all the other teenagers thinking about getting married.
I asked:
To the SSM supporters here, what does the SSM campaign mean by the slogan “NQHB”?
lhig replied:
Its “NOH8″ as in no-hate.
* * *
lhig, but what does the B mean?
* * *
To marriage defenders, please let the SSMers provide their own answers.
Patrick, although you may feel you know their marriages better than they do, both Larry Craig and his wife, and Ted Haggard and his wife, are still married.
You appear to be vehemently against mixing of sexual orientations. That's your underlying complaint about Craig and Haggard, neither of whom say they are homosexual and neither of whom sya they are gay.
But in any case, you are declaring your bigotry for you are, like Scott earlier, big on segregation based on what you presume to be an immutable characteristic.
That characteristic, of course, is ill-defined and is thus very changeable depending on the politics you'd use, even within the so-called "GLBT community" or identity groups.
Scott1 @Posted January 29, 2010 at 8:23 am demonstrated the same segregative and surpemacist mentality:
When YOU stop your fellow Christians from going into the Castro, and West Hollywood and Chelsea and Boystown and Dupont Circle and Midtown and all of the other gay neighborhoods to witness and pray and say, “maybe that’s not the best idea, maybe gays and lesbians would like to be left in peace;” I’ll gladly intervene protect that little grandmother’s cross.
* * *
It is helpful to note that Scott1 has likened his support for the reprisals and vengeance-seeking of the anti-8 protestors with the Fred Phelps protestors.
And, comically, he liked the little old lady with her cross.
She was surrounded by burly anti-8 protestors spitting and pushing and shouting at the top of their lungs in her face. They performed like the Phelps of the pro-SSM movement.
So did the mob that attacked the young group that exercised their liberties when they stood on a street corner. Apparently there are gay-only street corners in California that plainly debunk the pro-SSM cliche of comparing marriage laws to racialist segregation of water fountains and restrooms.
Scott1 wrote
[To TC and Fred and all of the others who are asking if gay and lesbians condone violence against the Yes on 8 folk, when YOU start calling out Fred Phelps and his clan, I’ll gladly start telling gays and lesbians to chill out, not to take your signs, or make harassing phone calls, or punch someone in the face, or send white powder, or threaten to kill somone.]
Yep, definitely a KKK mindset.
So, much for homosexual activists being cut from the same cloth as Dr. King who NEVER used or supported violence to win constitutional rights for Black people.
Maple,
You said: "Gay marriage does exist, and it is very real."
If so, then, you will have no problem stating the essential feature(s) of "gay marriage" such that it is clearly different from the rest of the types of relationshps and arrangements that are not eligible for "gay marriage".
Is there a legal requirment for gayness for those who'd show up for the license to "gay marriage"? If not, why not?
Before you pin a license on "gay marriage" you need to justify the special treatment for the type of relationship you have in mind. Identify that type by its essential feature(s). The feature(s) that would justify the special treatment. The feature(s) that are not present in the rest of the nonmarriage category.
Start from scratch, Maple, and make "gay marriage" stand on its own two feet without you having to refer to the union of husband and wife.
I think the word marriage has social, legal and societal implications that everyone understands. Civil union? Not so much. There are no other licenses that the state grants which have different names for different groups, with different levels of status. There’s really no need to start creating a tiered status of licensing for different groups now!
Exactly, Kevin. Marriage is marriage, just like it says in our Constitution. No more complications required.
I personally oppose civil unions, since marriage should be preferred and fostered since it provides the basis of stable families and since every child deserves the *good* of having a home and family with their own mother and father.
People who don't see that are people who I am very happy to vote against.
Please re-read #27 - DuPree -- the best and most incisive comment in this thread.
I don't myself know ANY gay people -- not a one -- who condone violence against Prop 8 supporters. To the extent that violence, or threats of violence, have occurred, I think that's an unambiguously bad and wrong thing.
"Please re-read #27 - DuPree — the best and most incisive comment in this thread."
George W. S.
Unfortunately, the entire premise of DuPree's comment in #27 is false. If gay was who you ARE and not what you FEEL, or what you DO, then he'd have a point. As it is, gay is a human condition. It has nothing to do with who you ARE. Who you are is a child of God. That cannot be changed by anyone. We are all equal. People are equal. Actions never will be.
"I don’t myself know ANY gay people — not a one — who condone violence against Prop 8 supporters. To the extent that violence, or threats of violence, have occurred, I think that’s an unambiguously bad and wrong thing."
I'm glad to hear that you do not condone violence against those who disagree with you. I wish more on your side of the issue felt the same. A simple trip through this thread though illustrates otherwise and sadly so.
TC Matthews, thank you for your comments. Ditto to them all. Thanks for your information, Samantha, Marie, for your lively wit. Kevinn, very true, I am, personally, in agreement with Rick DeLano’s points.
The fight over Prop-8 in court, when twice the voice of the people has passed it, makes a mockery of democracy. To my knowledge, the voice of the people has never been put on trial. Votes have been cast and counted; a measure has received a majority....twice. The right, (an equal right) of casting one's ballot is integral to our Democratic Republic. The people of California have spoken -- the people’s rights are being infringed upon by this trial. The decision to televise did its damage, perhaps as intended (that opens a kettle of fish) and, although the decision was overruled by the US Supreme Court, a mis-trial has occurred as a result. Can Prop-8, although a defendant, seek an appeal of the US Supreme Court if it loses? Anyone know?
Perusing the posts before mine, it seems that the talk by those of the gay community, or those Anti-Prop 8, has largely been the voice of violence, or else antagonistic in tone. One exception is Maple, and I understand how she feels, even though I think she's wrong. Children deserve a daddy and a mommy, not two of one. And what about three of one, or four of the other? Polygamists (who are NOT Mormons, by the way) will next want "equal rights" or "equal recognition" or "true equality" by having the laws criminalizing polygamy repealed. An interesting article on this expanded potential in terms of attempts to re-define marriage is this article from USA Today: "Polygamy laws expose our own hypocrisy":
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/2004-10-03-turley_x.htm
We have to look at the bigger picture here, and do what is best for society as a whole, protect the Constitution and its intent, and uphold the natural family which underpins society. That means there will be individuals and groups that will not be able to have what they want -- and, please, none of this "equal rights" rhetoric; we all have equal rights under the law already . We should be grateful for that, and nourish that which has made our country strong for over 200 years, that which has seen us through a near-secession of New England during the War of 1812, and the later secession that resulted in the Civil War. In both cases, preserving the nation and its Constitution came first. (Please, no comparisons between civil rights and gay “rights” – see Fred’s posting on that.) Recall these lines from Lincoln’s Gettysburg address: “...that we here highly resolve...that government: of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” This “of the people” is threatened in California.
Back to doing what is best for society and looking at the bigger picture: As always-- though it is often forgotten -- there is the future to consider here. Our nation can decline and/or fall just like any nation, empire, or civilization in the past.
In the book _The Character of Nations_: How Politics Makes and Breaks Prosperity, Family, and Civility_ (Angelo M. Codevilla, HarperCollins, 1997, pp. 155-56) the author makes cogent points in the following quote (bear in mind that the notions of redefining marriage and of redefining family are interconnected, and read through his logic with a rational mind, without taking offense):
[quote] The very notion of 'redefining' families is a thinly disguised argument for the proposition that the natural family is no better than any other human arrangement and is probably the worst of the lot. Thus, practitioners of what were once called 'deviant' lifestyles want to pin the family [or marriage] label on relations between homosexual couples less because they think there is little difference between homosexual and heterosexual relationships than because they want for homosexual couples whatever deference natural families [and marriages] normally receive. Yet this desire can not be fulfilled for logical as well as practical reasons. If families are not natural and permanent unions of one man and one woman, and their children, in addition to others related by blood and marriage, they are the products of infinitely variable choices. And if that were the case, how could one deny the label family to sometime unions of one man and many women, of one woman and many men? Why deny it to any combination of bisexuals, pedophiles, and necrophiles or to practitioners of sex with other species or with one's own offspring? Yet to the extent the label 'family' is restricted to some living arrangements and not others, the criterion for the restriction must be natural. The acceptance of nature as the criterion, however, drives us back to one man and one woman united to reproduce and raise children." [end of quote]
Finally, to those above who say people who believe in love, don’t show it: There is an aspect of love that has been called “tough love.” Tough love is the sort that is not afraid to say, “You can’t have that.” If parents don’t use this aspect on themselves and their children, judiciously and appropriately, they end up with a child that rules them and is ungovernable, just as they themselves become ungovernable, ruled as they are, by their wants. A good future often means saying “no” now. As TC Mathews said above: “marriage is a right sure. Redefining marriage? sorry no.” (Posted January 29, 2010 at 3:38 pm)
Five stars Dee. Excellent!
Dee,
When you say
"We have to look at the bigger picture here, and do what is best for society as a whole, protect the Constitution and its intent"
I assume you're not skipping the 14th amendment right? The Plaintiff's case argues that Prop 8 unconstitutional because it violates the 14th amendment. Whether or not it does is the point of the trial
Also regarding your question about appealing the US Supreme Court, the answer is of course not. Both sides will have chances to appeal before it gets to the 'highest court in the land' but their decision is final.
PS. Both of these things are on the test to become a US citizen if you are naturalizing. I have a feeling all US citizens should have to take this test.
The 14th amendment is no barrier to the natural family as the building block of society. We are all equal, regardless of the different beliefs we hold.
Dee, you said: when twice the voice of the people has passed it....
This is the whole point of those fighting Prop 8. We are the ONLY country on earth that has voted on this important civil rights issue (which is what it is). This is immoral, in my view. The rights of the minority should NEVER be up for a vote by the ignorant majority. This is a founding principle of our country, and our founding fathers would be outraged that we have voted on civil rights. John Adams said:
"That the desires of the majority of the people are often for injustice and inhumanity against the minority, is demonstrated by every page of the history of the whole world"
So, let's allow the courts to do their job, and interpret the constitution (not legislate from the bench, but provide PROTECTIONS for the minority).
Dan, why do you keep trying to paint yourself as a blighted minority? You have every right I have to marry. Nothing is withheld from you, nothing is beyond your reach. How can you sit there and demand special rights in the name of equality? Oxymoron?
Each of us can be a minority of one, depending on the circumstances.
I agree with TC Matthews and Dee.
No one is a minority based on sexual orientation when it comes to marriage law which does not impose a sexual orientation criterion for eligiblity nor for ineligibility.
SSM argumentation might, but marriage does not.
The SSM argument, Dan, is one red herring after another.
An open trial would have been a boon to everyone -- wouldn't it be great to hear all sides of the argument, straight from the people who care about it most?
I don't really understand why the Supreme Court decided that the American people aren't competent enough to watch this trial. It seems rather belittling.
Did you read the case presented to the court about irreparable harm? The competence of the American people had nothing to do with it. Federal trials are not televised by rule and for good reason. Judge Walker broke those rules to try to favor one side of the case. The U.S. Supreme Court was not amused.
Irreparable harm in that the anti-marriage folks might be intimidated by the pro-marriage folks? Judge Walker didn't buy that argument (appointed by a Republican president, just by the by) and neither did almost half of the Supreme Court.
I think the real reason the Prop-8 side didn't want the trial open to the American people is that they didn't want us to see their arguments. And I don't blame them for that! When one of your expert witnesses is explaining that though polygamy was quite common throughout the world until recently, it was still marriage between one man and one woman, since the man only married one woman at a time after all! -- you might not want the public seeing your case, either.
"The pretext for the suit, brought by homosexuals seeking to marry in California, is that the voters of the state used discrimination and hatred rather than a rational, cultural, or legal basis when they passed a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. The Plaintiff's case was legally thin and emotionally hysterical. The so-called expert witnesses introduced "evidence" that merely repeated the often debunked propagandist rhetoric of homosexual activists so common in today's biased media. It was the equivalent of "those nasty, mean, intolerant, homophobes are picking on us."
TC - the voters didn't use discrimination, lies, and hatred when they voted, NOM, the LDS church and the Catholic Church (and the list goes on) used discimination, lies, and hate to persuade voters to vote FOR prop 8.
Doug, those are fairly biased assumptions aided by a large set of blinders. Do you honestly believe that the only arguments against SSM are based in hate and discrimination? How convenient for you. . . how then do you account for the GLBT population who also voted for proposition 8?
Emma, the truth is that polygamy is a series of husband-wife marriages.
The first wife does not marry the second wife; neither of the first two wives marries the third wife.
They'd have in common the same man who married each of them in turn. The practice comes with the expectation that each wife is monogamous while the man is polygamous, which is different than bigamous where polygamy is lawful.
May ask, do you object to society issuing licenses for polyamous arrangements?
If you object, why?
If you do not object, why?
If polygamists were plaintiffs instead of the two couples Olson has chosen to represent, they's explain that their marital practice was loving, consensual, and that they desired all the emotional validation and uplift that Olson's plaintiff's have talked about in their testimony. They'd also describe the stigma they experience. They're part of a group that is classifiable as lacking political power to change the marriage laws.
Indeed, Olson could have made pretty much the same oral argument for polygamists that he has made in this anti-8 trial.
Likewise, he could have made the same basic argument on behalf of people who experience Genetic Sexual Attraction.