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

Schadenfreude Alert, Part 2: NOM Is Apoplectic

Jim Burroway

August 4th, 2010

 Brian Brown’s and Maggie Gallagher’s heads explode:

“Big surprise! We expected nothing different from Judge Vaughn Walker, after the biased way he conducted this trial,” said Brian Brown, President of NOM. “With a stroke of his pen, Judge Walker has overruled the votes and values of 7 million Californians who voted for marriage as one man and one woman. This ruling, if allowed to stand, threatens not only Prop 8 in California but the laws in 45 other states that define marriage as one man and one woman.”

“Never in the history of America has a federal judge ruled that there is a federal constitutional right to same sex marriage. The reason for this is simple – there isn’t!” added Brown.

“The ‘trial’ in San Francisco in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case is a unique, and disturbing, episode in American jurisprudence. Here we have an openly gay (according to the San Francisco Chronicle) federal judge substituting his views for those of the American people and of our Founding Fathers who I promise you would be shocked by courts that imagine they have the right to put gay marriage in our Constitution. We call on the Supreme Court and Congress to protect the people’s right to vote for marriage,” stated Maggie Gallagher, Chairman of the Board of NOM.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0

Timothy Kincaid
August 4th, 2010 | LINK

Oh I love that “trial” has scare quotes around it.

Burr
August 4th, 2010 | LINK

Here we have an openly gay (according to the San Francisco Chronicle) federal judge substituting his views for those of the American people and of our Founding Fathers who I promise you would be shocked by courts that imagine they have the right to put gay marriage in our Constitution.

The views of the American people are not monolithic. They are divided pretty evenly on this issue and thus this is a place for judges to step in. Stop pretending this is 100% against 0%.

The Founding Fathers would be shocked that governments are regulating marriage at all. They didn’t need marriage licenses. Where is heterosexual marriage in the Constitution?

beachewtoy75
August 4th, 2010 | LINK

“Here we have an openly gay (according to the San Francisco Chronicle) federal judge substituting his views for those of the American people and of our Founding Fathers who I promise you would be shocked by courts that imagine they have the right to put gay marriage in our Constitution. ”

1. I was wondering how long it would take to point out that Walker was gay.

2. The founding fathers would be shocked by a black president and a female Sec of State, too!

Ryan
August 4th, 2010 | LINK

That’s nothing compared to how shocked our Founding Fathers would be by the internet. Or cars! Man, they would be terrified of cars! I bet they’d think cars were some sort of scary devil machines! And let’s not even get into allowing women to be the governor of a large state near the Russian border! That’s nuts! Man, I bet there’s literally thousands of things our Founding Fathers would be shocked by. Maggie should go write a book about them or something; it would finally be a constructive use of her time.

Lindoro Almaviva
August 4th, 2010 | LINK

Please, we all knew they were getting ready to loose the trial and were looking for reasons to play the victim card.

People like this make me sick and bring the worst in me so i am going to take a breath and count to 10.

Greg
August 4th, 2010 | LINK

“With a stroke of his pen…”

Uh, actually, Brian, it was 138 pages worth of strokes of his pen.

Dustin
August 4th, 2010 | LINK

I don’t understand why they keep harping on the fact that Walker is gay. If he was an Evangelical, would they have asked him to step down because his religious beliefs would have presented a conflict of interest? What about a judge who’s a member of the NRA presiding over a gun rights case…do they think that should be disallowed as well?

Ryan
August 4th, 2010 | LINK

No Dustin, because those judges would rule correctly.

Mark F.
August 4th, 2010 | LINK

I don’t mind that someone disagrees with this ruling. However, the totally hysterical tone of the anti-gay people is mind boggling … you’d think they just legalized child molestation.

cd
August 4th, 2010 | LINK

I don’t mind that someone disagrees with this ruling. However, the totally hysterical tone of the anti-gay people is mind boggling … you’d think they just legalized child molestation.

It’s being widely observed today that Walker’s verdict and their own failure to mount a serious defense has annihilated the remaining credibility of their argument. That credibility has been eroding all along, as ever more pieces of it have become untenable. Walker sifted through the wreckage and it’s 138 pages of showing his earnest labor to discover, but not finding, any substantive or respectworthy basis to their claims.

It’s a lot like federal judge John Paul Stevens’s verdict in Kitzmiller v Dover in 2004 that annihilated the Intelligent Design game. Everyone knew that one wasn’t a close call, but the verdict knocked out every leg the ID people had to stand on. It’s not that Stevens even intended to, it’s just that it was all rot and prevarication below the very thin surface on their side. They whined pitifully but didn’t even bother to appeal it.

John in MN
August 5th, 2010 | LINK

I hate it when Brown says there’s no right to gay marriage in the constitution. If he actually READ the thing, he would notice that there’s no right to marriage PERIOD!

So I ask Brian: What gives you special treatment?

jOHN
August 5th, 2010 | LINK

“We expected nothing different” from Maggie and Brian….

TampaZeke
August 5th, 2010 | LINK

I get so tired of hearing them make statements that would lead one to believe that an overwhelming majority of Californians have spoken out loudly in their opposition to marriage.

Even if we were to convince ourselves that 100% of Californians VOTED, their claim would be inflated. A small majority of those WHO VOTED opposed marriage equality.

The fact of the matter is about 16% of Californians voted to oppose marriage equality and 15% voted to support it. When you look at these FACTUAL numbers they don’t look so convincing for the marriage opponents.

The news media needs to point this out each and every time they make their bogus claim.

Michael McKeon
August 5th, 2010 | LINK

And never in history has the right to marry been given to an American and then taken away by vote based on Mormon and biblical b*ll sh*t. But little missy Brian left that part out. I count the days til he is found with a bag of meth and a rent boy.

Peace,
Michael McKeon

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.