December 20th, 2008
Over 18,000 same-sex couples were married in the five months between when marriage equality was determined to be the law of the State of California and November 4, when California voters narrowly passed Proposition 8.
And, in a move that should be a surprise to no one, those who foisted this inequality on a segment of the population are now demanding that the California Supreme Court invalidate the 18,000 marriages.
During the campaign, hardly a word was said to the voters about this most likely of events. Those who favored Proposition 8 prefered that the voters not consider whether forcing thousands of married Californians into unwanted divorce was disgusting and vile. And the No on 8 Campaign took another tack. They simply declared that these marriages would not be retroactively disallowed and dropped the subject.
At the risk of piling on, this is but another example of the rather short-sighted nature of the No on 8 Campaign. I cannot help but believe that an appeal by married couples in every media region of the state simply asking their neighbors not to force them into divorce might have been more effective than some of the television advertising that was selected in its place.
And as for the supporters of Proposition 8, this clearly illustrates that they were shamelessly lying when they said that this effort was only about “definition” of an “institution” and had nothing to do with gay people. Well, they “protected” their definition and the first thing they did was go after gay married couples.
Lest there be any confusion or uncertainly about the motivations of those who planned and executed this political effort, this brings all to light. By seeking the retroactive invalidation of previously enacted marriages between gay people, they reveal that their motivation is – and always has been – based in a desire to disadvantage, condemn, and punish those persons who are gay. It is without question that form of bigotry known as homophobia.
Latest Posts
Featured Reports
In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.
When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.
In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.
On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.
Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"
At last, the truth can now be told.
Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!
And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.
Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.
Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.
Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.
The FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.
Ben in Oakland
December 20th, 2008
Timothy– you mean YES ON 8, not NO on 8
Timothy Kincaid
December 20th, 2008
Ben…
I don’t think so. Where?
Patrick
December 20th, 2008
Well, so much for the “all sins are equal” argument. It is now clear they think same-sex marriage is a greater sin than divorce.
I currently have few to no kind words for conservative Christians.
Ben in Oakland
December 20th, 2008
is is but another example of the rather short-sighted nature of the No on 8 Campaign.
And the No on 8 Campaign took another tack.
AJD
December 20th, 2008
This doesn’t surprise me at all, but it is evidence that the religious right is truly evil.
After they’ve nullified 18,000 marriages, I’ll bet they’ll start getting ready to have civil unions banned as well.
Ben in Oakland
December 20th, 2008
AJD– as I wrote…
if you can vote on my marirage, you can vote on the existence of my domestic partnership.
and they may well try it.
AJD
December 20th, 2008
I totally think they would… Considering the fact that a bunch of religious right groups filed amicus briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of Texas’ sodomy law, and those remarks made by Sally Kern’s husband, I really think the religious right is using gay marriage bans as part of an incremental approach, the ultimate goal being to recriminalize us.
Patrick
December 20th, 2008
AJD – in other states where they banned same-sex marriages, they immediately put into action legislation to ban any and all state-sponsored benefits to partners of gay employees. If memory serves me correctly this happened in both Alaska and Michigan (I do not recall if the legislation passed). It is clear they will not rest until they’ve gotten sodomy laws back into the law of the land.
Ben in Oakland
December 20th, 2008
Timothy– I must have turned into a blond today. You had the yes/no people straight, so to speak. Mea culpa big time.
Ron's Log
December 20th, 2008
You’re right that the pursuit of retroactiver marriage invalidation reveals the sadistic side of the Christian supporters of Prop 8.
On the up side, in his brief to the Supreme Court A.G. Brown argues against the retroactivity of Prop 8. It seems that it is a principle of long standing in American jurisprudence that retroactivity must be clearly and unambiguously stated in any law, otherwise it is proactive only.
Kenneth Starr doesn’t stand a chance of winning the retroactivity argument.
Rob Lll
December 20th, 2008
Ben, as a blond I resent your remarks. You’re just jealous because we have more fun.
homer
December 20th, 2008
Totally not a surprise.
knobandtube
December 21st, 2008
All the crap, steaming and streaming from the allegedly religious/evangelical right is stoking the fires of anti-gay hatred. Violence against gays is on the rise and President-elect Obama needs to take his ration of blame for honoring one of the most prominent haters.
I think the lying campaign about Prop 8 has the effect of justifying the vigilantes out there. The language, names and lies Reverend Warren and the rest tell empowers those who would love to resort to violence. Is the recent gang-rape of a lesbian in Richmond, CA related to the recent news about Prop 8? I think so.
And President-elect Obama needs to get his share of the blame for increased violence against gays by claiming tolerance for the intolerant and honoring Warren, pastor of the nation, he gives credibility to their hatred.
Ryan
December 21st, 2008
Whoa, knobandtube, I think you’re going a little over the top, there. Connecting gang rape to Prop 8 without any evidence to back your claims is pretty dishonest and dirty, and frankly, the kind of stuff the Republicans would say about one of their issues. Warren doesn’t advocate any violence towards gay people, neither explicitly or implicitly.
John
December 21st, 2008
Timothy: Do you have a listing of pro-Prop 8 folks who said they wouldn’t do this prior to the election? I’d also like to know where I can find a similiar list involving states where anti-gay activists claimed they wouldn’t go after benefits only to do so once they won. I remember reading about this but it’s difficult to find now. This could make a really good posting… (hint, hint!)
Thanks.
Louie
December 21st, 2008
This news reminded me of a recent documentary the husband and I just watched called “Paragraph 175“. Quite educating and in light of this recent news from California, quite relevant.
Here’s more info about Paragraph 175 from wikipedia.
Watching this documentary also has given me second thoughts about “registering” ourselves with any govt. entities such as domestic partnership registries. This would make it extremely convenient to “round up all the gays” should times change.
We HIGHLY recommend that everyone watch this movie. We rented it off NetFlix.
Elizabeth
December 21st, 2008
John: I would also love to find out who those Pro 8 people were. The Yes on 8 campaign repeatedly said that THEY would not seek to invalidate the 18k marriages, but sounded like they fully expected that someone else would. Jerry Brown’s deadline was Friday. I wonder if there was a similar deadline for filing this brief.
Timothy Kincaid
December 22nd, 2008
Elizabeth,
Can you find where they said that, please? I don’t have an immediate reference and was under the opinion that they danced around it and didn’t address the question directly.
Elizabeth
December 22nd, 2008
Here’s one:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/06/MN3B13UM63.DTL
“Campaign manager Frank Schubert said Wednesday, however, that his organization has no plans to challenge any of those marriages in court. The question will have to be decided by “the court that created that problem” by refusing to suspend its ruling until after the election, he said, without describing how it might reach the court.”
Timothy Kincaid
December 22nd, 2008
Thanks!!
I’ll write a post about it
Leave A Comment