The National Organization for Marriage has a link on its site talking about how the California Supreme Court will be hearing Prop 8 arguments on Sept. 6:
You will notice that the link is from Focus on the Family and NOM doesn't even offer commentary on what this will mean for the state of marriage equality in California.
It's an ironic thing seeing that (according to NOM Exposed), the organization spent over 1.8 million in the effort to pass Prop 8.
But then again maybe it's not ironic, seeing that after spending that money to pass the law, NOM was nowhere to be seen when it came to defending it in court.
Sure, when the trial was over and Prop 8 was overturned, Maggie Gallagher, NOM's chairperson, appeared on news programs and wrote columns about how the case was biased against "traditional marriage."
Gallagher blamed the judge, she blamed the lawyers opposing Prop 8 - Ted Olson and David Boies, and of course she blamed the gay community.
But the one thing she never mentioned is just why didn't NOM testify in the case. The defense of Prop 8 only had two witnesses and one of these witness, David Blankenhorn, not only didn't have the scholarly credentials but his testimony also ended up hurting the defense's case.
Some folks speculate that Gallagher didn't want to be cross-examined in regards to NOM's finances and the claims the organization made in regards to children being harmed by marriage equality.
And some folks have even speculated that Gallagher didn't want NOM to be exposed for its use of false claims about gays using marriage to harm children, which most likely would have happened had Olson or Boies were allowed to cross-examine her.
Now just who would speculate such a thing?
Most likely anyone who has any decent common sense.
Breaking News:
California’s Supreme Court announced on Thursday that a new hearing date, Sept. 6, had been added to the calendar in the ongoing legal challenge to the state’s voter-approved marriage amendment.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals— where the Prop 8 case is on appeal — asked the state’s high court to determine, whether under California law, marriage amendment proponents “have the authority to assert the State’s interest,” since California’s governor and attorney general refuse to do so.
“The coalition of national organizations like Focus on the Family, and state organizations like all of the family policy councils, will not be deterred on the issue of marriage,” [Ron Prentice, chairman of ProtectMarriage.com's executive committee] added, “because it involves God’s heart, society’s future and a child’s protection.” --CitizenLink
You will notice that the link is from Focus on the Family and NOM doesn't even offer commentary on what this will mean for the state of marriage equality in California.
It's an ironic thing seeing that (according to NOM Exposed), the organization spent over 1.8 million in the effort to pass Prop 8.
But then again maybe it's not ironic, seeing that after spending that money to pass the law, NOM was nowhere to be seen when it came to defending it in court.
Sure, when the trial was over and Prop 8 was overturned, Maggie Gallagher, NOM's chairperson, appeared on news programs and wrote columns about how the case was biased against "traditional marriage."
Gallagher blamed the judge, she blamed the lawyers opposing Prop 8 - Ted Olson and David Boies, and of course she blamed the gay community.
But the one thing she never mentioned is just why didn't NOM testify in the case. The defense of Prop 8 only had two witnesses and one of these witness, David Blankenhorn, not only didn't have the scholarly credentials but his testimony also ended up hurting the defense's case.
Some folks speculate that Gallagher didn't want to be cross-examined in regards to NOM's finances and the claims the organization made in regards to children being harmed by marriage equality.
And some folks have even speculated that Gallagher didn't want NOM to be exposed for its use of false claims about gays using marriage to harm children, which most likely would have happened had Olson or Boies were allowed to cross-examine her.
Now just who would speculate such a thing?
Most likely anyone who has any decent common sense.
Yes, of course, Gallagher doesn't want to be cross-examined about her lies and her finances. As far as David Blankenhorn, see "Confessions of a Blog Addict. Or Why I Love to Hate GetReligion.org and FamilyScholars.org" at glbtq.com, especially the section entitled "The Sad Case of David Blankenhorn." Here is the url:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.glbtq.com/sfeatures/confessionsofablogaddict.html
Indeed, the hypocrisy--and the greed--of these people will not be forgotten. Most of them are making small fortunes out of depriving gay people of equal rights.
I would give money to see Miss Mags on the stand, but it will never happen. Even through the lawsuits NOM has filed/been a party to (in its attempts to hide donor names), nobody's dragged her kicking and screaming into a spotlight she didn't plug in herself.
ReplyDeleteBTW, the first thing that jumped out at me here was Prentice's remark about "God’s heart." Gallagher has wasted a lot of ink insisting religion has nothing to do with her hate crusade, and yet NOM posts this? But then, Miss Maggie exploits other people's religiosity whenever she can, while distancing herself (and NOM) as far as possible from religion, insisting that her (and NOM's) anti-gay arguments are based solely on "practical" grounds (procreation, etc.).
(I'm thinking of a certain Jewish anti-gay -- who wants desperately to be an "ex-gay" -- who cut his teeth at Gallagher's MarriageDebate.com; it was a long time before he figured out he was being used.)
I just find it interesting that the NOM site would let the G word slip through like that -- even if it didn't come directly from NOM. It's already difficult enough for most people to differentiate between NOM and ProtectMarriage.com (although, for all practical purposes, they may as well be one and the same).
None of them will ever testify under oath, because their entire case is based on lies, and perjury accusations would await such testimony. The best thing we can do is to try to force them to testify in open court.
ReplyDelete