Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Prop 8 Leader admits that “traditional marriage” really only means “no gays”

Timothy Kincaid

November 30th, 2009

In an article about John Marcotte’s tongue-in-cheek effort to ban divorce, AP writer Judy Lin got the leader of Prop 8 to make a telling admission:

As much as everyone would like to see fewer divorces, making it illegal would be “impractical,” said Ron Prentice, the executive director of the California Family Council who led a coalition of religious and conservative groups to qualify Proposition 8.

Prentice said proponents of traditional marriage only seek to strengthen the one man-one woman union.

“That’s where our intention begins and ends,” he said.

Yep, “traditional marriage” is only traditional to the extent that it excludes gay people. That, you see, is the sole defining characteristic of marriage’s traditions – or, at least, it’s the only thing that anti-gays care about.

Which, of course, is what Marcotte is trying to expose.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0 | TRACKBACK URL

Leo
November 30th, 2009 | LINK

OK, so now the next obvious question is how did the one-man-one woman union become stronger since the passage of Prop 8?

Alex
November 30th, 2009 | LINK

Making divorce illegal would be impractical? But I thought these people had the awesome power of Jesus on their side! Oh well, at least it’s nice to catch an anti-gay activist in a rare moment of honesty.

wackadoodle
November 30th, 2009 | LINK

is their a link to this?

John D
November 30th, 2009 | LINK

If you Google “John Marcotte,” this it the top hit under news:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ityjaAAMYI7StNV2uur-vrfyGuFgD9CA3KB80

Timothy Kincaid
November 30th, 2009 | LINK

Sorry guys. Link is there now.

Burr
November 30th, 2009 | LINK

What’s impractical about banning divorce? That’s been the status quo for ages!

Ben in Oakland
November 30th, 2009 | LINK

And i think Olson and Boies should be informed of this statement. It’s strong evidence that tjhis is not aobut hwat the anti-gays say it is aobut.

Does anyone know how to contact them?

Johnson
November 30th, 2009 | LINK

The “A-Ha Quote”–anti-gay animus pure and simple. Here it is folks, as if anyone didn’t know that already.

Ellen
November 30th, 2009 | LINK

Join the FB page of 2010 California Protection of Marriage Act.

Eddie89
November 30th, 2009 | LINK

Ben,

As far as contacts, I was not able to find any “direct” contact information.

But, on their website, American Foundation for Equal Rights, I was able to find that they also have a Facebook account and a Twitter account. Perhaps leaving a message on either of these sites may get their attention.

Richard W. Fitch
November 30th, 2009 | LINK

If banning SSM is ‘a practical way’ to protect traditional marriage, why is it not the case that banning divorce is also a practical means to protect traditional marriage?

Timothy Kincaid
November 30th, 2009 | LINK

Richard,

Banning divorce is impractical because too many voters actually know (or are) divorcees and will not fall for lies.

And more importantly, there just isn’t enough animus towards divorcees to get their fellow citizens to infringe upon their freedom.

Banning the rights of the less well known and much more hated gay people is far far more “practical”.

Emily K
November 30th, 2009 | LINK

50% of marriages end in divorce. That’s a LOT of people being affected in one way or another. It’s no wonder it wouldn’t fly.

Vancity
November 30th, 2009 | LINK

Here is contact information:

Ted Olson:
http://www.gibsondunn.com/Lawyers/tolson

David Boies:
http://www.bsfllp.com/lawyers/data/0001

Donnchadh
December 1st, 2009 | LINK

What I find even more telling is that he goes from “everyone would like it” to “banning it” as if this were automatically the best approach. If asked to tackle inflation he would think of banning wages raises.

homer
December 1st, 2009 | LINK

Divorce was illegal in the Territory of Arizona until 1873, when Governor Safford got the Territorial Legislature to grant him a divorce. For the next few years, divorces could only be granted by the Legislature. Obviously, a return to this type of system would save many, many traditional marriages that are in danger of being destroyed by homosexual marriges in Massachusetts and Iowa!

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.