Analyzing and refuting the inaccuracies lodged against the lgbt community by religious conservative organizations. Lies in the name of God are still lies.
In this fight over marriage equality, the most disturbing thing to me is how folks affiliated with the National Organization for Marriage, the Heritage Foundation, and other so-called pro-family groups have no problem exploiting children as props for homophobia.
What I mean by that is typified by a talking point they all use:
All children have a right to a mother and a father.
It's a short, but powerful statement which they have used to define their side of the issue. It has also been a battle cry which they have used to rally their supporters.
But it is also fiendishly deceptive statement which typifies the lack of reality encompassing opponents of marriage equality.
First of all, by the statement, it is implied that every time gays adopt children or have children, we are depriving children of something, that we are taking their rights away, that we are harming children.
It is implied that we are so selfish that we are willing to put children in a state which will lead them constantly disadvantaged.
To me as a gay man, that is totally offensive. And it is a lie.
However, more importantly, the statement that "all children have a right to a mother and a father" deliberately ignores the reality that all children do have mothers and fathers.
You see, when NOM, the Heritage Foundation, etc. start talking about families, they mean only one concept of family. A man and a woman joined together and raising children. While there is nothing wrong with this concept, to heavily imply that this is the only concept that matters in terms of family is dangerous.
These organizations ignore the fact that sometimes the mother/father setting may not be the best place for the child, i.e. some mothers and fathers have no business raising children. These organizations also conveniently ignore single parent households, children being raised by relatives. And more importantly, orphans and especially children in the foster care system.
One can imagine how better the world would be if these so-called pro-family groups would used their skills, money, and influence to find permanent homes for orphans and children in foster care instead of attacking families for not fitting into their narrative.
Unfortunately though, one gets the impression that they don't care about these children or any families they can't exploit for their narrative.
The only reason why Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council has the reputation (undeserved) of a normal Christian leader is because the media is slack in calling him out for the myriad of times he and his organizations have defamed, demonized, and outright lied on the lgbt community.
And it seems to me that another reason is because the lgbt community isn't holding the media - especially OUR media - accountable for this.
Case in point is something he retweeted today.
As many of you already know, Perkins is in the Vatican as one of the invited guests of Pope Francis. He and others, including Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage is "discussing" their view of marriage, a view which of course omits the lgbt community.
There were others invited, including an Archbishop Nicholas Okoh from Nigeria. Perkins really liked him. He even retweeted a statement Okoh made:
Where the culture and the Gospel clash, the culture must bow to the Gospel. -- AB Nicholas Okoh of Nigeria #Humanum
— Tony Perkins (@tperkins) November 17, 2014
Of course the bigger question is what in the hell is someone like that doing being invited to have an audience with the Pope. But for the purposes of how Perkins likes to constantly harp on how Christians are being persecuted in Ammerica, further questions about his support of Okoh's statement needs to be asked of him.
Most likely these questions won't be asked. The lgbt community call him a bigot and make jokes about how he is secretly gay. Meanwhile, Perkins will go on Fox News where Megyn Kelly and company will treat him like a legitimate Christian leader. And they will be very sure to let him control the conversation and not even mention Okoh.
And to me, that's just so damn scandalous, it turns my stomach.
This is rich. A wedding chapel in Arizona which holds religious and non-religious weddings turns down a lesbian couple. The wedding chapel is well within its rights according to state law and the lesbian couple will not pursue legal action, but do bring up a good point of the chapel not posting anything about hold same-sex marriages.
So why is the owner of the chapel still furious? Because the lesbian couple chose to take the story to the media. Cue the "War on those who believe in Jesus" crap. It's bad enough that some businesses do not want to cater to the lgbt community. But when they get angry when that fact is known, the situation becomes highly surreal:
As you all may or may not have noticed (and I hope you have), the Know Your LGBT History portion of my blog has been under hiatus. The reason was simple. I was burnt out and running out of topics.
I wanted to bring it back with a bang so I hope that this post does the trick.
My Top Five LGBT Villains in Cinema
I love villains. Who cares about the heroes because it's the villains which make the movie. If it's a good villain, it will be a good movie. If the villain sucks, then the same will be said for the movie.
Lgbt villains are a difficult class to pinpoint. Our community have had to deal with movie characters who are villains for simply being lgbts. Unfortunately, these villains embody the very worst ofthin, one-dimensional stereotypes which do nothing but insult us. I'm glad to say that times are changing.
That's not to say that there were certain villains who transcended the stereotypes via nuanced performances or just downright campiness. With that in mind, I present my Top Five Villains who did just that. One note - this list will contain plot spoilers.
Honorable Mention: Mercy Croft - The Killing of Sister George (1968) - Late actress Coral Browne portrays Mercy Croft (I love that name), the innocuous television executive who is more than she seems in this controversial rendition of the hit Broadway play. Beryl Reid portrays June Buckridge, an actress who portrays a kind nurse, Sister George, on a popular soap opera. However, in reality, Buckridge is a loud, boisterous, drunken lesbian whose off-the-set exploits get her into trouble involving her job and threatens her relationship with her partner, Childe (Susannah York). Croft is the media executive who not only delivers the news of her firing to Buckridge, but also (in a scene still controversial by today's standards) seduces and steals Childe. Then she proceeds to verbally DEVASTATE Buckridge after being caught. Croft is honorable mention solely because many don't see her as a
villain. Her incredible tongue lashing of Buckridge does have some
truth to it because Buckridge is not a likable character. However, after
having the temerity to steal someone's girlfriend and then verbally
annihilate the person, Croft needs to have some type of recognition.
5. Raoul Silva - Skyfall (2012) - Silva (Javier Bardiem) is the villain in Skyfall, which is probably the best James Bond movie I have ever seen. His plot is simple. He wants revenge on Bond's boss, M (Judi Dench) for what he felt was a betrayal. But his methods are complex, including this scene where he teases Bond with a seduction. Some have said he was merely playing with Bond's head. I say that there was more to Silva than meets the eye and this scene proved it:
4. Mrs. Danvers - Rebecca (1940) - The oldest and easily the creepiest on our list. Mrs. Danvers (Judith Anderson) is the head housekeeper of the estate Manderley whose actions in the motion picture are possibly because of her secret love of the late mistress of Manderley, Rebecca De Winters. As such, she despises the new wife (Joan Fontaine). She deviously manipulates Fontaine's nervousness and inadequacies until she has the poor child contemplating suicide. Then she tells to go ahead and do it. Not to worry though. Evil doesn't triumph in the end. Mrs. Danvers' secret love for Rebecca is hinted in a sly manner, such as in this scene of her and Fontaine in Rebecca's bedroom:
3. Dr. Frank N. Furter - The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975) - Can a space alien doctor from the planet Transsexual in the galaxy of Transylvania be all that bad? I won't even bother with the plot of this movie or explaining Dr. Furter (Tim Curry) because you probably know it already. But I do have one question. What exactly was his mission before he decided to make a man for "dynamic tension?"
2. Mr. Kidd and Mr. Wint - Diamonds are Forever (1971) - A pair of assassins from easily the campiest James Bond movie in the series. Kidd and Wint are lovers and cold blooded assassins hired to kill all of the chains of a diamond smuggling operation. They trade silly witticisms while doing just awful things such as blowing up helicopters, stuffing scorpions down the backs of their victims, throwing old women into canals, chaining folks to cement blocks at the bottom of swimming pools, etc. etc. The following scene, which cements who is in control of the relationship, is a classic:
1. The Nun - Come Back Charleston Blue (1972) - I know what you are thinking - who the hell is that. Bear with me. Come Back Charleston Blue was a blaxploitation movie sequel about a Harlem neighborhood besieged by the murders of drug dealers and the theft of their products. Residents claim that it is the work of Charleston Blue, a Prohibition era gangster who disappeared while on his way to kill legendary gangster Dutch Schultz. In reality, it is the work of a neighborhood photographer and community leader, Joe Painter (Peter De Anda). Painter is slowly but surely taking over the drug ring in Harlem by getting rid of the competition. Helping him is a character who I will call The Nun, although he is known as "the freak" in the movie and is credited as a "drag queen" by the credits. In a scene stealing performance (and unfortunately what looks like his only performance), actor Tony Brealond is Painter's second in command and a former soldier in Vietnam. Through subtle hints, it is implied that he is also Painter's lover even though Painter is also carrying on with Carol (Jonelle Allen), the niece of the neighborhood mob boss.
Some may ask why would I pick this character with no name from a movie which many of you don't remember or know. Basically because he is one of the only few lgbt of color characters in cinema not picked as comedy relief or to be pitied. He is the epitome of the "genderfuck" with an attitude. He commands respect and at times is downright fierce (particularly in the graveyard scene where he, clothed as a grieving widow, leads a massacre of mob figures) And then there is my favorite scene - when he starts a knock-down brawl with a bunch of pastors at a youth recreation center after being called a bad influence on young boys.
UPDATE: "I'm Not Gay No More" - So, the 'I'm not gay no more' video star has a lurid path of deceptions. Well color ME surprised.
Meet Cathi Herrod, Arizona’s Extreme Anti-LGBT “Legislative Terrorist” - If I said it once, I said it 1,000 times. The lgbt community CANNOT trust the mainstream media to tell the true story about anti-gay activists unless we either lead the truth-telling or do it ourselves with our own media. I could care less about Kim Kardashian's naked ass. But I do care when someone who wants to take away my equality is given a sweet, cuddling interview by the media.
Alabama Defends Marriage Ban With ‘Largely Unbelievable’ Expert - Works for me. In the past when the religious right would cite discredited work, they would be able to get over because very few folks knew about said work. The lgbt community has come a LONG way over the years in calling out discredited and cherry-picked science. We've made a disability into an asset.
THIS AFTERNOON - One stole the lead character's girlfriend then proceeded to give her a blizzard-inducing dressing down. One is a space alien who abandoned his original mission to build the perfect man. One is the second command in a neighborhood drug cartel and he will not be disrespected. But which one will be chosen as No. 1 in the 'Know Your LGBT History' Top Five LGBT Villains of Cinema. Find out this afternoon on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters. This will NOT be a negative list.
As to be expected, SC Attorney General Alan Wilson is digging real deep in order to keep marriage equality out of South Carolina. A recent article in The State hinted that he is prepared to take it to the Supreme Court. And it because of that reason, Wilson is claiming, that the court should put a hold on the recent ruling bringing marriage equality to South Carolina:
Attorney General Alan Wilson has asked a federal appeals court to put
on hold a judge's order allowing gay marriage in the state, warning
that not doing so will cause irreparable damage to South Carolina.
U.S.
District Judge Richard Gergel on Wednesday threw out the state's
constitutional ban on same sex marriage and blocked any state official
from enforcing it. But the judge wrote his order would not take effect
until noon Nov. 20 so Wilson could appeal.
Wilson asked the 4th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, on Thursday to stay
the judge's order until the entire appeals panel can consider the
issue.
In the alternative, if the appeals court doesn't issue a stay, Wilson asked for time to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Here is where it gets interesting:
The 4th Circuit has already struck down Virginia's gay marriage ban, a
2-1 ruling that applied to other states in the circuit. The U.S.
Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of that case last month and
South Carolina remains the only state in the circuit refusing to allow
such marriages.
In asking for the stay, Wilson argued the dissenting opinion in the Virginia case was the correct one.
That
opinion supports South Carolina's position that "same-sex marriage
restrictions do not discriminate on the basis of sex and that South
Carolina's definition of marriage, dating from colonial times, a union
of a man and a woman is supported by rational grounds," Wilson wrote in
his request.
He warned that without a stay South Carolina will
suffer harm because same-sex marriages will go forward only to cause
legal confusion about the status of those married if the state prevails.
In other words, Wilson is prepared to take this as far as it can go. I wonder how much of the taxpayers money will he be using?
Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/2014/11/13/3809561_sc-appeals-ruling-that-tosses.html?sp=/99/205/&rh=1#storylink=cpy
Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/2014/11/13/3809561_sc-appeals-ruling-that-tosses.html?sp=/99/205/&rh=1#storylink=cpy
SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT!! - Tomorrow afternoon on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters will see the return of 'Know Your LGBT History' featuring 'The Top Five LGBT Villains of Cinema.' You can start guessing who they will be now, but you will never figure out my list! I will give you a hint. This will NOT be a negative list.
Even though the fight is far from over, South Carolina lgbts and their allies took time out to celebrate a federal judge's decision which brought marriage equality a little closer to the Palmetto State. I have to tell you, as one of was heavily involved in attempting to stop that awful 2006 ballot initiative which barred marriage equality in the state, I was as elated as the folks on this video:
By now you all have heard about the video of the young man at the Church of God in Christ’s 107th Holy Convocation in St. Louis and his proclamation about "not being gay no more." The video has caught fire and gone viral, with so many folks ridiculing it that the whoever filmed it - no doubt church officials - has placed it on private view.
However, that only makes the situation worse because there are so many copies on youtube:
And then there are the remixes seen below.
But first, let me address something. A twitter friend of mine made a good point about hypocrisy. He said that it's a shame that so many folks laughed at this video but would weep at hearing about gay men forced in reparative, or 'ex-gay' therapy.
Like I said before, it's a good point. However there is something different with this video. It's just so damn surreal. It's a basic farce. I don't care how loud folks in the video, including the young man, shouted and danced about his "deliverance." Nor do I care that the pastor handed him $100 as sort of a symbolic gesture of God's grace (seen in the original video).
Judge rules that gays have constitutional right to marry – first federal ruling on an S.C. same-sex marriage case - WHOOPEE! HURRAY!! Okay celebration is over. Two things we must remember. The ruling has been stayed until Nov. 20 and Governor Haley and Attorney General Wilson can appeal it, which they probably will. And here I thought tea party legislators were all about NOT wasting money. But even more important than that, as the next news brief shows, if marriage equality DOES become the unadulterated law in SC, we will be seeing the opposition twist the fight to that of 'religious freedom.' In the words of actress Pam Grier from Coffy, "you'd better believe it's coming."
Religious liberty = discrimination: A complex issue explained in simple terms - THIS is how we gear up for the post marriage-equality war. By explaining the "religious liberty" lies in simple terms. Discrimination is discrimination and if visuals help, USE THEM. This post was published by me this morning but it bears repeating.
Almost on a daily basis, anti-gay groups and their allies in the conservative media bombard the airwaves and internet with anecdotes and horror stories of Christians who own secular businesses, such as cake decorating or non-religious wedding chapels, supposedly having their livelihoods threatened because they refuse to serve gay customers like the law says they should.
Noted conservative author and media figure (and that's not said to give compliments but to note how low conservatives have sunk in terms of who is given status in their community) Erick Erickson has coined a phrase "you will be made to care" which illustrates how allegedly marriage equality is an issue which will drop us all into a dark abyss of intolerance and coercion.
And we hear the phrase "religious freedom" and "religious liberty" so many times that the press, as they often do, repeat the phrases without giving any shred of nuance, much like the dogs of Pavlov have been trained to salivate.
But let's break it down.
In Texas, legislators may push a bill which would allow businesses and government contractors - in the spirit of religious freedom of course - to refuse to serve gays and fire their employees who happen to be gay. And the lawmaker behind the bill, State Sen. Donna Campbell, wants to enshrine this so-called right in the state constitution.
“Our Judeo-Christian values are under assault and I’m not going to let
that stand. We have the right and religious freedom to express
ourselves. When the government moves outside the proper bounds of the
primary role, especially in order to legislate societal norms, they’re
on shaky ground. Really it’s a few, just a few advocates, of tolerance.
They are trying to criminalize faith and traditional values of the
majority of Texans. Tolerance is going too far in this instance.”
Campbell is spewing nonsense. What attack is she talking about? She seems to feel threatened by the American principle that customer should be treated the same in a place of business.
Apparently some evangelicals, like Campbell, want special rules which don't necessarily have a thing to do with how they worship or where they worship. You see, the 'religious liberty' argument doesn't have a thing to do with them. When you eliminate the spin, you discover that the "religious liberty" argument has everything to do with the gay community. It's just an ornate way of handing us a laminated card of inferiority, a way of searing a scarlet letter into our consciousness.
The 'religious liberty' argument is a farce designed to send a constant reminder to gays from folks like Campbell saying "We don't care what the law says or what the court says. You don't deserve to be on our level and in our minds you never will be. You don't deserve equal treatment under the law and we will never let you forget that."
It's not that complex to gauge or figure out because we have been through this sort of thing before in history. Allow me to put it another way:
If you have a problem with the following:
Then you SHOULD have a problem with this:
After all, how is the 'religious liberty' argument, which would allow discrimination against gays, any different than one which would allow discrimination against Jewish people, African-Americans, the Chinese, etc?
In the end, it doesn't matter how one sugarcoats it. Discrimination is discrimination.
Cake decorators and non-religious wedding chapels may seem like a minor facet in the argument about discrimination but they are a crucial facet. If we allowed them to discriminate against gays, at what point does said discrimination stop?
One day, we are discussing cake decorators and non-religious wedding chapels. How long will it be before we start talking about apartment complexes, restaurants, stores, and other places of business?
Is it even right for the 'religious liberty' argument to be used in those cases and what assurances do we have that in the future, it won't be?
You simply have to give up props to SC Attorney General Alan Wilson. He may not be on the right side of history regarding marriage equality, but he is brazen:
South Carolina's attorney general is asking a federal judge to toss out a challenge to the state's gay marriage ban.
Attorney
General Alan Wilson argues in court documents filed Monday that a
federal case brought by a same-sex couple in Charleston should be
dismissed. He cites last week's federal appeals court decision upholding
such bans in other states.
Wilson said the Sixth U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals decision that states have the right to set rules for
marriage supports South Carolina's constitutional ban on same-sex
marriage. Wilson noted the decision came in a case in which a court
found no fundamental right to same-sex marriage.
The Charleston couple has asked a federal judge to rule in their favor without a trial.
There is just one problem with that. South Carolina does not fall in the jurisdiction of the Sixth District Appeals Court. The state is in the jurisdiction of the Fourth District Appeals Court. And it was that court which, earlier this year, ruled in favor of marriage equality, affirming a lower court's decision.
Last month, the Supreme Court refused to listen to challenges to that particular decision, thereby upholding the Fourth District Appeals Court's marriage equality ruling for the state's in its jurisdiction, which includes South Carolina.
The only reason why gay couples aren't getting married in the Palmetto State is because Wilson has been hemming and hawing and jumping through every hoop in an effort to keep it from happening.
It's safe to say that Wilson's attempt today affirms just how desperate he is.
So the American Family Association is angry at Kellogg for sponsoring Atlanta's Gay Pride march and festival. One would think the organization would've have been angry about the strange relationship between those three elves promoting 'Rice Krispies.' What does "snap, crackle, pop" mean anyway?
Two Brides Tie The Knot In Russia, Prompting Outrage - Bravery does not come from pleading victimhood status when you know you are in an insulated environment. It comes from things like this - putting yourself on the line for basic freedom.
If you have seen this video, so what. See it again. In fact, view it every time you feel depressed, despondent, or overwhelmed by the anti-gay machine. Having the courage to stand up for yourself knows no race, no age, and definitely no sexual orientation or gender identity.
Alex hasn't even left elementary school but he already has a firm
grasp on his identity and what it means to be transgender. He wrote a
rap about coming out to his mother and shared it on stage at Camp Aranu’tiq, a camp for transgender and gender-variant youth.
According to its website,
Camp Aranu'tiq focuses on, "building confidence, resilience, and
community for transgender and gender-variant youth and their families
through camp experiences."
You'll Never Guess Who The Advocate's Person Of The Year Is- Anti-gay Russian president Vladimir Putin. There are so many questions with this pick and deservedly so. Did The Advocate give such attention to all of the anti-lgbt persecutions efforts in Africa. And why not someone more positive. While I'm sure the magazine made the choice on what is considered as impact, I still feel a more positive choice would have been in order. Personally I see nothing wrong with Laverne Cox. Why not put Putin in a category about those who seek to harm the lgbt community? Just my opinion.
Beltway media wrongly gives Perkins, FRC free pass to lie.
In a recent fundraising letter to followers, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins pulled out all of the stop to weasel as much money as possible. Of course he used the usual lie about how Christians' "religious liberty" was being attacked. Perkins also brought up the awful incident in which the group was targeted by a deranged gunman named Floyd Corkins. In 2012, Corkins sought to begin a mass shooting at FRC headquarters but was stopped by the security guard before anyone was seriously hurt.
The fact that Corkins was prevented from carrying out his plot was a good thing. The unfortunate thing is how FRC has continuously exploited the incident, such as in the fundraising letter when it said:
On August 15, 2012, Floyd Corkins walked into FRC’s Washington
offices and opened fire. His intent was to kill as many FRC employees as
he could. And he had the ammunition to murder or maim dozens. But
thanks to divine intervention, and the quick actions and bravery of the
unarmed Leo Johnson, who took a bullet as he subdued Mr. Corkins, no one
else was hurt.
What instigated this unprovoked attack? The website of the wealthy
liberal organization misnamed the Southern Poverty Law Center. You see FRC was targeted on the SPLC “hate map” for its stand against same-sex “marriage.”
Uh no.
Probably for the thousandth time on this blog, NO.
Corkins was man off of his medication who had thought about harming anti-gay groups long before SPLC called out FRC as an anti-gay hate group. And also, FRC earned the designation not because of its stand against marriage equality, but for something much more sinister and enduring.
Contrary to what the FRC has repeatedly claimed, we do not list the
FRC as a hate group because of its opposition to gay marriage or because
of its religious beliefs. Instead, we list the FRC because it engages
in baseless, incendiary name-calling and spreads demonizing lies about
the LGBT community.
The FRC portrays gay people as sick, evil,
perverted, incestuous and a danger to the nation. It insists that gay
people are “fundamentally incapable” of providing good homes for
children – a myth that has been rejected by all relevant scientific
authorities. One of its key leaders has actually said that homosexual
behavior should be criminalized.
Perhaps the FRC’s most dangerous
lie is its claim that pedophilia is a “homosexual problem,” to use
Perkins’ words. Here’s what the American Psychological Association says:
“Despite a common myth, homosexual men are not more likely to sexually
abuse children than heterosexual men are.” The APA adds, “There is no
scientific support for fears about children of lesbian or gay parents
being sexually abused by their parents or their parents’ gay, lesbian or
bisexual friends or acquaintances.”
Linking the LGBT community
to pedophilia is not an expression of a religious belief, as Perkins
would have it. It’s simply a lie – and a particularly ugly one at that.
Constantly portraying gay people as sick, evil, perverted, incestuous
and a danger to the nation simply adds fuel to the fire.
It's one thing to be bullheaded and stubborn when it comes to beliefs,
but this issue of why SPLC designated FRC to be a hate group has been
covered repeatedly. Enough times to for Perkins to know that his claim
is false.
In other words, Tony Perkins is lying. And he knows that he is lying every time he makes that claim.
“I would much prefer to export homosexuals from the United States than to import them into the United States, because we believe that homosexuality is destructive to society.” (See 0:11 mark here.) [*NOTE: A week later, Peter rolled back his statements,
saying he "used language that trivialized the seriousness of the issue
and did not communicate respect for the essential dignity of every human
being as a person created in the image of God"]
It's relatively sad to consider that Perkins and the Family Research Council have gotten away with what they have been doing for so long. One reason may be because they are so deeply entrenched in the jaded Washington D.C. Beltway that they are given somewhat of a free pass by the media. After all, many members of that group has referred to Perkins as an evangelical or faith leader on a number of occasions, in spite of his vicious dehumanization of the lgbt community.
But every time Perkins is referred to as a "faith leader" and every time he gains access to the media without having to answer for his statements against the lgbt community is a poor indictment on not just the Washington D.C. Beltway media, but all American media in general.
Looks like the issue of marriage equality may have to be finally decided by the Supreme Court thanks to an absolutely ridiculous ruling by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld four
states’ bans on same-sex couples’ marriages on Thursday, splitting with
the decision of four other appellate courts and likely setting up a
Supreme Court showdown on the issue.
Judge Jeffrey Sutton, writing for the 2-1 majority of the court,
wrote the opinion upholding the constitutionality of Kentucky, Michigan,
Ohio, and Tennessee’s bans.
“When the courts do not let the people resolve new social issues like
this one, they perpetuate the idea that the heroes in these change
events are judges and lawyers,” he wrote. “Better in this instance, we
think, to allow change through the customary political processes, in
which the people, gay and straight alike, become the heroes of their own
stories by meeting each other not as adversaries in a court system but
as fellow citizens seeking to resolve a new social issue in a
fair-minded way.”
That statement is just plain ridiculous. What does Sutton think judges are for? If we left it up to him, segregation would have had to have been decided through African-Americans waiting on the benevolence of white voters. It is an absolute shirking of his duty.
"[T]he right to marry in general, and the right to gay marriage in
particular, nowhere appear in the Constitution. That route for
recognizing a fundamental right to same-sex marriage does not exist."
Sutton sounds like one of those types who believes that the Constitution should be interpreted as it was when it was written and not taking into account that it has to be a "living document" such a belief is impossible in terms of the multitude of changes taking place in American culture over rhe years.
The one judge who voted against upholding the bans, Martha Craig Daughtrey, called out her colleagues in what The Huffington Post called a "blistering dissent:"
The majority opinion "treats both the issues and the litigants here as mere abstractions," Daughtrey wrote.
"Instead of recognizing the plaintiffs as persons, suffering actual
harm as a result of being denied the right to marry where they reside or
the right to have their valid marriages recognized there, my colleagues
view the plaintiffs as social activists who have somehow stumbled into
federal court, inadvisably, when they should be out campaigning to win
'the hearts and minds' of Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee voters
to their cause," she wrote.
"But these plaintiffs are not
political zealots trying to push reform on their fellow citizens; they
are committed same-sex couples, many of them heading up de facto
families, who want to achieve equal status ... with their married
neighbors, friends, and coworkers, to be accepted as contributing
members of their social and religious communities, and to be welcomed as
fully legitimate parents at their children’s schools," she continued.
"They seek to do this by virtue of exercising a civil right that most of
us take for granted -- the right to marry."
Citing the Supreme Court ruling that struck down key provisions of
the Defense of Marriage Act in 2013, Daughtrey said that the majority of
the federal appeals court ignored the damage to the children of
same-sex couples whose unions were not recognized.
People familiar
with the Supreme Court ruling in the Windsor case, Daughtrey wrote,
"must have said to themselves at various points in the majority opinion,
'But what about the children?' I did, and I could not find the answer
in the opinion."
She added that it was "ironic that irresponsible,
unmarried, opposite-sex couples in the Sixth Circuit who produce
unwanted offspring must be 'channeled' into marriage and thus rewarded
with its many psychological and financial benefits, while same-sex
couples who become model parents are punished for their responsible
behavior by being denied the right to marry."
In concluding her
dissent, Daughtrey cited the oath of office she took more than 20 years
ago when she was sworn into office. She said her colleagues "seem to
have fallen prey to the misguided notion that the intent of the framers
of the United States Constitution can be effectuated only by cleaving to
the legislative will and ignoring and demonizing an independent
judiciary." She wrote that the judiciary existed to "ensure that rights,
liberties, and duties need not be held hostage by popular whims."
"If
we in the judiciary do not have the authority, and indeed the
responsibility, to right fundamental wrongs left excused by a majority
of the electorate, our whole intricate, constitutional system of checks
and balances, as well as the oaths to which we swore, prove to be
nothing but shams," she wrote.
To the tell the truth, this piecemeal approach was annoying. Hopefully the Supreme Court will deal with this soon.
The end result of the 'religious freedom argument'
Just as I figured, the Family Research Council is crowing like a crowd of roosters because of Republican election night wave:
Via an email from FRCAction:
President Obama has bailed out a lot of things in six years -- but last night, the Democratic Party wasn't one of them.
By night's end, his policy failures
accounted for one of the largest Republican waves to hit Capitol Hill
since World War II, as the GOP won back control of Congress. With a
12-seat cushion in the House and seven-plus gains in the Senate,
conservatives sent more Democrats packing than the city has moving vans.
The message from an angry electorate was clear: the experiment in
lawlessness has gone on long enough. And while Republicans were the
beneficiaries of the country's outrage, Tuesday's victories were not so much an endorsement of the GOP as they were a repudiation of Senator Harry Reid's (D-Nev.).
Angry voters used Republicans to remind the White House that the
President and his party can bypass Congress. They can even ignore the
Constitution. But as long as democracy exists, they cannot silence the
people. With a 52-45 edge in the Senate and a comfortable double-digit
majority in the House, a new political dynamic is already taking shape.
This morning, voters woke up to even more surprises, as Democrats
continued to fall like dominos in liberal strongholds like Illinois,
Maryland, and Massachusetts.
It goes on like this, except for in one unexpected place. There is nary a mention about marriage equality. There is an offhand comment about the recent 'I Stand Sunday' event but even then there is no mention of marriage equality or the argument about "religious liberty:"
For all the talk that the evangelical movement is dead or irrelevant,
last night's results should put those rumors to rest. Thanks to the
momentum from I Stand Sunday, Star Spangled Sunday, and unprecedented
church engagement, 26% of the voters in yesterday's midterms were
evangelicals (1% higher than their turnout in 2010). A whopping 78% of
them broke for the GOP. And that's just the tip of the evangelical
iceberg. Experts believe there's plenty of untapped potential in the
pews, especially if a third of possible evangelical voters stayed home.
Imagine the growth possibilities for the GOP if it did more to mobilize
its social conservative religious base! Meanwhile, the non-churchgoing
vote fell heavily Democratic -- a reminder of how important the
evangelical movement is to the Republicans' success. Once again, the
youth vote was an unreliable one for either party, with a 12% turnout
for 18 to 29-year-olds (a seven-point drop from 2012).
It's fascinating that an organization so invested in exploiting people's inaccurate fear and religious opposition to marriage equality would go out its way to exclude mentioning it on its post election night gleefest.
Could it be that FRC recognizes that marriage equality was not a large factor the Republican victories? Could it be that the organization is tacitly scaling back its vocal commitment against marriage equality because it recognizes it can't stop the progressive onslaught of the issue?
Naw. FRC is planning something and I bet that it will be huge.
In the meantime, let's do what we can to make the above picture the true face of the "religious liberty," "religious freedom" argument.
