Dear supporters of Proposition 8,
Please do not take my words as gloating but rather a clear and concise analysis of why you may be feeling dejected now over the overturning of Proposition 8.
In 2008, when you won, many of you stood with your arms raised in defiance of the bitter tears you caused in the lgbt community.
What a difference two years makes indeed.
But let me explain to you why you lost today. It’s not complicated, but rather simple.
Your side lost because you lied.
Oh I know that folks on your side will whine about “activist judges who make laws rather than interpret them,” but let’s be real here.
Your entire narrative has been a lie from the beginning.
Folks on your side, such as Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage, the Family Research Council, and the rest of the pseudo defenders of morality will probably whine about how you all have been unfairly labeled as “bigots.” And I am sure that they will point out that every time there has been a public vote on marriage equality, the lgbt community has always lost.
But they will conveniently omit how these victories were attained. You won’t hear about how they invoked images of gay boogeymen molesting children in false ads nor will they admit to telling lies about children supposedly being taught about gay sex.
You won’t hear them admit to exploiting people’s unconscious fears and ignorance of the lgbt community in order to spin outrageous scenarios of what could happen should lgbts be allowed to marry.
And don’t be surprised by this. Those like Gallagher will never admit to the depths they stooped to win not only in California but other places like Maine.
But there is a reason why this country has checks and balances. And there is a reason why people can’t arbitrarily vote on the rights of others without having to defend this vote in the logical arena of courts, where you can’t invoke panic by proverbially yelling fire in a crowded theatre.
In the courts, you must defend your position. And in the long run, you couldn’t. Or rather many of you wouldn’t. Again, the specters of gay bogeymen were invoked as your leaders spun false images of avenging hordes for their reluctance to be questioned in the courts about the unprovoked lies they said in pulpits, in speeches, and on commercials.
This time, it didn’t work. The court saw through the phony claims and realized something, which I hope that many of you now do - you have no logical reason to either deny us the right to love or to deny us the ability to protect the ones whom we love.
But please don’t think that even though we are celebrating, the lgbt community is naive to think that this ends the struggle for marriage equality.
We know this is just the beginning of a long fight to attain something that should have been ours from the beginning.
But that’s okay.
We are a community who learn from our past mistakes. At times we lose, but we learn to adapt and we eventually win.
So bring it on. We are not afraid.
Message to the religious right - this isn't just about marriage, it's about history
today is a good day. let us hope it only gets better.
Thank you. Let you words ring loud.
Logic? Since when do the courts use logic? How can one logically claim any Rights? This is politics! Not truth finding. Forget arguments given thus far and start from scratch. explain your 'Right' to marry? Traditional or otherwise? You can't! You might say 'I want to.' You might say 'why not?' But these are not logical arguments. They are the beginning of a rhetorical oration.
Fine, the courts said it is logical, but are Rights given by courts or do the courts respond to Rights.
You can't claim an absolute Right to Fairness and Justice, unless you allow a god, or some system, but that is 'illogical' for courts.
(Notice this wasn't a prop comment - but a comment to 'Rights' that seem to be floating in the air, ready for the best Rhetoric... Not logic)
Fernando my friend. Your argument is all over the place except where it should be. what exactly is your point?
The issue of rights has been clearly defined by over two centuries of American history, but the most profound assertion of all is found in our own national charter, the Constitution. First, the preamble asserts that 'we the people' authorize this govt to act on our behalf. And second, the bill of rights unequivocally states in the ninth and tenth amendments that all rights not listed in the Constitution still belong to the people.
In the past two hundred years, the courts have repeatedly interpreted any collision of rights in favor of the individual, thereby determining that we do have a right to privacy and a woman does have a right to choose. And in over 22 cases, the supreme court has ruled that the right to marry is fundamental and sacred and part of the body of rights included in 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'
A careful reading of Judge Walker's opinion, or even a casual reading of it, shows that he carefully considered the issues solely from the arguments put before him, and was unable to find a compelling interest or even a legal justification for the majority to vote away the rights of a minority.
This is and always has been a civil rights issue. Those who try to see it as anything else are simply missing the point.
Great post Alvin.
The problem is that empirical, demonstrable truth never mattered to these people. They are concerned only with their goal, and outrageous claims are their primary weapon (cash being the fuel for this weapon). Emotional "truth" is what they rely on; the "truth" that they despise gay people and the self-righteous "truth" that feel they alone are representatives of American society.
In short, let them choke on their avarice, pride, and fear. Attempting to get through to them only galvanizes their collective hysteria.
My point is the courts said in the hearing, "(prop 8)fails to advance any rational basis.." A rational basis and logic are not what the courts operate on. That's it.
As Mr Gerrold points out, the preamble says 'we the people,' and that the bill of rights stating the rest 'go to the people.'
Which brings me back to my point. It is not a rational basis that we design our rights or government but as Paul (with my tweaking) PEOPLE don't care about demonstratable truth, just what they hold as an 'emotional truth.'
So the people (who hold 'emotional truth') -> make the up their rights -> enforce it in law
I was trying to point out, if you want to point to something other than 'emotional truth,' (Statistics is just another rhetorical tool), something more concrete, you need to evoke something transcending like a moral law, which needs a god.
And no I am not argueing for religion, I see politics as people with their own rhetoric and agenda. None which show an interest in Rational reasoning, but rather 'emotional truths.'
Fernando - you still don't make sense. In plain english, the Constitution guarantees some rights and says those no enumerated belong to the people. It is oversimplification on my part, but generally true that the courts determine which right belongs to an individual and when they overlap and when the collective good overrules the individual. Prop 8 also lost because they couldn't come up with any non-religious reasons NOT to allow same sex marriage. Every reason SCOTUS came up with to strike down various racial barriers and other restrictions also apply to SS couples.
and Fernando, since when everything moral involve a "god"? where did that come from?
Actually, no. No one lied. FAIR Education Act discredits that claim.
You are talking gibberish, anonymous.
Post a Comment