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 Supporters React

Jim Burroway

August 4th, 2010

First, we go to Andy Pugno, general counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, which represented the losing side in today’s decision:

“Today’s ruling is clearly a disappointment. The judge’s invalidation of the votes of over seven million Californians violates binding legal precedent and short-circuits the democratic process. But this is not the end of our fight to uphold the will of the people for traditional marriage, as we now begin an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

“It is disturbing that the trial court, in order to strike down Prop 8, has literally accused the majority of California voters of having ill and discriminatory intent when casting their votes for Prop 8.

“But the reality is that Prop 8 was simply about restoring and strengthening the traditional definition of marriage as the unique relationship of a man and a woman, for the benefit of children, families and society.

“At trial we built a solid record to show that marriage has served as the foundation of the family and society as a whole, has universal functions and features attributable only to unions between a man and woman, has been defined in both law and language as a union between a man and a woman, and acts as the predominate relationship in which to create and support children.

“We are confident that the trial court record we built will help us ultimately prevail on appeal and reverse today’s ruling.

Newt Gingrich, who believes in the sanctity of marriage between on man and three consecutive women, warns that this should be another knock against confirming Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court:

“Judge Walker’s ruling overturning Prop 8 is an outrageous disrespect for our Constitution and for the majority of people of the United States who believe marriage is the union of husband and wife. In every state of the union from California to Maine to Georgia, where the people have had a chance to vote they’ve affirmed that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Congress now has the responsibility to act immediately to reaffirm marriage as a union of one man and one woman as our national policy. Today’s notorious decision also underscores the importance of the Senate vote tomorrow on the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court because judges who oppose the American people are a growing threat to our society.”

Wendy Wright, Concerned Women for America stomps her foot and demands that the decision be overturned immediately:

Judge Walker’s decision goes far beyond homosexual ‘marriage’ to strike at the heart of our representative democracy. Judge Walker has declared, in effect, that his opinion is supreme and ‘We the People’ are no longer free to govern ourselves. The ruling should be appealed and overturned immediately.

“Marriage is not a political toy. It is too important to treat as a means for already powerful people to gain preferred status or acceptance. Marriage between one man and one woman undergirds a stable society and cannot be replaced by any other living arrangement.

Robert George of the American Principles Project, sees this as ensuring “additional decades fo social dissension and polarization”:

Another flagrant and inexcusable exercise of ‘raw judicial power’ threatens to enflame and prolong the culture war ignited by the courts in the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade,” said Dr. Robert P. George, Founder of the American Principles Project. “In striking down California’s conjugal marriage law, Judge Walker has arrogated to himself a decision of profound social importance—the definition and meaning of marriage itself—that is left by the Constitution to the people and their elected representatives.”

“As a decision lacking any warrant in the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the Constitution, it abuses and dishonors the very charter in whose name Judge Walker declares to be acting. This usurpation of democratic authority must not be permitted to stand.”

…“The claim that this case is about equal protection or discrimination is simply false,” George said. “It is about the nature of marriage as an institution that serves the interests of children—and society as a whole—by uniting men and women in a relationship whose meaning is shaped by its wonderful and, indeed, unique aptness for the begetting and rearing of children.

…“Judge Walker has abandoned his role as an impartial umpire and jumped into the competition between those who believe in marriage as the union of husband and wife and those who seek to advance still further the ideology of the sexual revolution. Were his decision to stand, it would ensure additional decades of social dissension and polarization. Pro-marriage Americans are not going to yield to sexual revolutionary ideology or to judges who abandon their impartiality to advance it. We will work as hard as we can for as long as it takes to defend the institution of marriage and to restore the principle of democratic self-government,” concluded Dr. George.

Focus On the Family’s Judicial Analyst Bruce Hasknecht (he apparently didn’t get layed off last week) warns that this could have repurcussions for the other 49 states in the union:

“Judge Walker’s ruling raises a shocking notion that a single federal judge can nullify the votes of more than 7 million California voters, binding Supreme Court precedent, and several millennia-worth of evidence that children need both a mom and a dad.

“During these legal proceedings, the millions of California residents who supported Prop 8 have been wrongfully accused of being bigots and haters. Nothing could be further from the truth. Rather, they are concerned citizens, moms and dads who simply wanted to restore to California the long-standing understanding that marriage is between one woman and one man – a common-sense position that was taken away by the actions of another out-of-control state court in May 2008.

“Fortunately for them, who make up the majority of Californians, this disturbing decision is not the last word.

…“We do want Americans to understand the seriousness of this decision, however. If this judge’s decision is not overturned, it will most likely force all 50 states to recognize same-sex marriage. This would be a profound and fundamental change to the social and legal fabric of this country.

Tony Perkins at the Family Research COuncil anticipates that the decisionwill be upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (“the most liberal appeals court in America”), and will only make the anti-gay rhetoric “more volatile”:

“This lawsuit, should it be upheld on appeal and in the Supreme Court, would become the ‘Roe v. Wade’ of same-sex ‘marriage,’ overturning the marriage laws of 45 states. As with abortion, the Supreme Court’s involvement would only make the issue more volatile. It’s time for the far Left to stop insisting that judges redefine our most fundamental social institution and using liberal courts to obtain a political goal they cannot obtain at the ballot box.

“Marriage is recognized as a public institution, rather than a purely private one, because of its role in bringing together men and women for the reproduction of the human race and keeping them together to raise the children produced by their union. The fact that homosexuals prefer not to enter into marriages as historically defined does not give them a right to change the definition of what a ‘marriage’ is.

“Marriage as the union between one man and one woman has been the universally-recognized understanding of marriage not only since America’s founding but for millennia. To hold that the Founders created a constitutional right that none of them could even have conceived of is, quite simply, wrong.

“FRC has always fought to protect marriage in America and will continue to do so by working with our allies to appeal this dangerous decision. Even if this decision is upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals-the most liberal appeals court in America-Family Research Council is confident that we can help win this case before the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Randy Thomasson, of Save California thinks the oath of office should be updated to force judges to only issue conservative rulings:

“Natural marriage, voter rights, the Constitution, and our republic called the United States of America have all been dealt a terrible blow. Judge Walker has ignored the written words of the Constitution, which he swore to support and defend and be impartially faithful to, and has instead imposed his own homosexual agenda upon the voters, the parents, and the children of California. This is a blatantly unconstitutional ruling because marriage isn’t in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution guarantees that state policies be by the people, not by the judges, and also supports states’ rights, thus making marriage a state jurisdiction. It is high time for the oath of office to be updated to require judicial nominees to swear to judge only according to the written words of the Constitution and the original, documented intent of its framers. As a Californian and an American, I am angry that this biased homosexual judge, in step with other judicial activists, has trampled the written Constitution, grossly misused his authority, and imposed his own agenda, which the Constitution does not allow and which both the people of California and California state authorities should by no means respect.”

Tim Wildmon of the American Family Association goes further, and calls for Judge Walker’s impeachement:

“This is a tyrannical, abusive and utterly unconstitutional display of judicial arrogance. Judge Walker has turned ‘We the People’ into ‘I the Judge.’

“It’s inexcusable for him to deprive the citizens of California of their right to govern themselves, and cavalierly trash the will of over seven million voters. This case never should even have entered his courtroom. The federal constitution nowhere establishes marriage policy, which means under the 10th Amendment that issue is reserved for the states.

“It’s also extremely problematic that Judge Walker is a practicing homosexual himself. He should have recused himself from this case, because his judgment is clearly compromised by his own sexual proclivity. The fundamental issue here is whether homosexual conduct, with all its physical and psychological risks, should be promoted and endorsed by society. That’s why the people and elected officials accountable to the people should be setting marriage policy, not a black-robed tyrant whose own lifestyle choices make it impossible to believe he could be impartial.

“His situation is no different than a judge who owns a porn studio being asked to rule on an anti-pornography statute. He’d have to recuse himself on conflict of interest grounds, and Judge Walker should have done that.

“The Constitution says judges hold office ‘during good Behavior.’ Well, this ruling is bad behavior – in fact, it’s very, very bad behavior – and we call on all members of the House of Representatives who respect the Constitution to launch impeachment proceedings against this judge.”

Richard Land demands the revival of the Federal Marriagae Amendment

“This is a grievously serious crisis in how the American people will choose to be governed. The people of our most populous state—a state broadly indicative of the nation at large demographically—voted to define marriage as being between one man and one woman, thus excluding same-sex and polygamous relationships from being defined as marriage.

“Now, an unelected federal judge has chosen to override the will of the people of California and to redefine an institution the federal government did not create and that predates the founding of America. Indeed, ‘marriage’ goes back to the Garden of Eden, where God defined His institution of marriage as being between one man and one woman.

“This case will clearly make its way to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the Supreme Court of the United States, where unfortunately, the outcome is far from certain. There are clearly four votes who will disagree with this judge—Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, and Alito. The supreme question is: Will there be a fifth? Having surveyed Justice Kennedy’s record on this issue, I have no confidence that he will uphold the will of the people of California.

“If and when the Supreme Court agrees with the lower court, then the American people will have to decide whether they will insist on continuing to have a government of the people, by the people and for the people, or whether they’re going to live under the serfdom of government by the judges, of the judges and for the judges. Our forefathers have given us a method to express our ultimate will. It’s called an amendment to the Constitution. If the Supreme Court fails to uphold the will of the people of California—if we are going to have our form of government altered by judicial fiat—then the only alternative left to us is to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.

“Many senators who voted against the federal marriage amendment the last time it came up said publicly if a federal court interfered with a state’s right to determine this issue, they would then be willing to vote for a federal marriage amendment. Ladies and gentlemen, prepare to vote.

Lou Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition is losing his creativity. In fact, his statement is rather boring. I won’t bother posting it. But TVC state lobbyist Benjamin Lopez thinks this will motivate the Tea Party Movement even more:

“If folks think that the Tea Party movement is a force to be reckoned with now, wait until the silent majority of pro-family voters flex their political muscle once again. Judges beware, you will go the way of Rose Bird, stripped of their robes and kicked off the bench,” Lopez added.

Oops! Lopez’s statement appears to have been deleted, which just leaves Sheldon’s uncreative outrage.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0

Lindoro Almaviva
August 4th, 2010 | LINK

Read one and it is like reading all:

This is not fair, we heterosexuals have a god-given right to impose our views on the rest of the world. Our sense of entitlement should be rewarded at all costs. We demand to be given our way or we will hold our breaths until we pass out or die

Yawn…

Larry Gist
August 4th, 2010 | LINK

I would like to know how 18% of the citizens of CA constitutes a “vast” majority of the populace. Do the math folks – 18% voted yes 16% voted no. That represents 79% of the electorate, but barely 30% of the population. So their arguments about “majority” are invalid.

Jaft
August 4th, 2010 | LINK

I had thought to remark when I first heard the news that today was like Christmas. After a beautifully wrapped equality, I get to go to the stockings!

They were rather stuffed, but oh so delectable.

CPT_Doom
August 4th, 2010 | LINK

I’m loving all the statements about how this ruling goes against the “original framers” of the Constitution (alternatively, the “Founding Fathers”). The ruling was based on the 14th Amendment, which didn’t pass until 1868. All of the Constitution’s original framers and the Founding Fathers were long dead by then.

Burr
August 4th, 2010 | LINK

Marriage is not a political toy. It is too important to treat as a means for already powerful people to gain preferred status or acceptance.

Agreed, actually. It’s just to truly agree with that you must give up the fight and allow gays to marry. No more preferred status for heteros, no more seeking acceptance for your fringe theories of superiority.

DN
August 4th, 2010 | LINK

Minor correction, Jim, if I may: Gingrich believe in love between three consecutive women – he believes in loving two consecutive women, marrying a third, and having an affair while at the same time screaming for the impeachment of a president for getting an extra-marital blowjob.

justsearching
August 4th, 2010 | LINK

Time to get out the popcorn, sit back, and watch the crazies give a good show.

andrewdb
August 4th, 2010 | LINK

The Lopez comment was probably dropped because, as a Federal Judge, there is no election for them.

Regan DuCasse
August 4th, 2010 | LINK

Do they have ANY idea how frikkin’ STUPID they all sound?
They are SO single minded that legal historical context gets by them completely. To say nothing of NO EVIDENCE to prove their assertions.
Didn’t they think they had to have evidence or did they think they only had to breath heavily and that’s enough to get their way?

The Constitution is a serious document they played with for an abominable reason.
All in the name of jacking gay people around. And even then, their stated purpose of Prop. 8, doesn’t have the result of protecting anything.

NOM might be counting on SCOTUS to rule in their favor because it is heavily Catholic.
But even THEY require evidence to come to a ruling.
Judge Walker gave them an ironclad template to review and draw from.
What part of they. had. no. rational.case. doesn’t the opposition understand?

Greg P
August 5th, 2010 | LINK

They would probably have agreed with William F. Buckley Jr. on the Brown decision.

So long as (the white South) is merely asserting the right to impose superior mores for whatever period it takes to effect a genuine cultural equality between the races, and so long as it does so by humane and charitable means, the South is in step with civilization, as is the Congress that permits it to function.”

VapoRob
August 5th, 2010 | LINK

Umm I’m under the impression that the tea party is made up of Libertarians. Libertarians want limited government in peoples lives which means government not interfering in who can and cannot get married. I’m under the impression that they are on our side.

Greg
August 5th, 2010 | LINK

Isn’t there something odd about the people who have been claiming that the majority should not rule through all of the obstruction in the Senate now saying that “the majority have spoken”?

Jim Burroway
August 5th, 2010 | LINK

The tea party is most definitely NOT “on our side.” Nor are they really libertarians. They had no objection to governmental interference in the Patriot Act, and when they carried signs to their rallies saying “keep your hands of my Medicare,”they can be as statist as anyone else.

To say that they are Libertarians with a capital “L” will comes as a surprise to everyone who has ever been a member of the Libertarian Party or the Cato Institute. Every single member of the Tea Party Caucus is an on-the-record ardent opponent to LGBT equality, especially marriage. Tea party leaders like Dick Armey have chosen to keep their opinions in the closet for now, but the rank-and-file haven’t. Among Washington state Tea Partiers, only 36% think gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to adopt children, and just 17% are in favor of same-sex marriage.

http://depts.washington.edu/uwiser/racepolitics.html

That same survey found that only 35% believe Blacks to be hardworking, only 45 % believe Blacks are intelligent, and only 41% think that Blacks are trustworthy.

These are the same group of people who will, in order to demonize immigrants, lie about spiraling crime rates (crime has been going down), increased property crimes along the border (all crime, including property crimes, along the border has been going down), beheaded bodies in the desert (officials have found none anywhere in America). These are different lies from those hurled at gay people, but the tactics are the same.

What gives anyone the comfort that when LGBT issues become the hot topic again that the tea party will be “on our side”?

Markus
August 5th, 2010 | LINK

None of those anti-gay organizations’ comments even compare to the anti-gay, anti-marriage nastiness that you can find at the supposedly “gay” site GayPatriot.org.

If you don’t believe me check it out for yourselves. The further you get into the comments the deeper and more extreme the level of anti-gay animus gets.

The all too familiar North Dallas Thirty fears that ruling that gay people can’t be discriminated against for their “so-called innate sexual orientation” (which he doesn’t believe in) opens the door for pedophiles to petition for the same “sexual behavior based” rights and protections.

I warn you. If you don’t have a strong stomach, as in one strong enough to wade through a Free Republic (Freeper) comment thread, then DON’T go to GayPatriot. They really give the Freeper’s a run for their money when it comes to hating queers.

http://www.GayPatriot.org

TampaZeke
August 5th, 2010 | LINK

Why are we expected to base all of our rights today on what the founding fathers wrote over 230 years ago. The people at GayPatriot are making the case that there is NO basis for protecting gays because the founding fathers didn’t include it in the constitution.

Are they forgetting that MANY of the founding fathers OWNED SLAVES including Thomas Jefferson, who authored good parts of the documents that they claim should be the ONLY basis for rights today. Are they forgetting that in the 18th Century world where “all men [were] created equal” women couldn’t own property or vote.

If women and African-Americans can find their rights in the later amendments to the constitution then whey should gays be able to use those same amendments?

TampaZeke
August 5th, 2010 | LINK

“then why shouldn’t gays be able to use those same amendments”?

Timothy Kincaid
August 5th, 2010 | LINK

VapoRob,

It might be most accurate to think of Tea Party activists as single-issue voters. Most of them are not on our side, but that isn’t their issue. And they are infuriating social conservatives by refusing to focus on Teh Geys and instead obsessing on fiscal issues for the most part.

Markus,

No one can hate quite like those who hate themselves. I’m certainly not one who accuses every gay Republican of being self-loathing, but if that term has a meaning, it can be witnessed at GayPatriot

Erin
August 5th, 2010 | LINK

All they can say is it’s not about discrimination, but about upholding an institution that lets men and women come together to raise children responsibly. This argument would be valid and make sense if what we are trying to do is ban marriage between heterosexuals. I’m all for responsible procreation. Have at it. But what about those heterosexuals who don’t want kids or decide they want to give kids who have been given up by their birth parents a loving home through the adoption process? Should they not have the protections of marriage? It’s not about children. It’s about punishing us because they don’t like that we blow a huge hole in their theology and/or we threaten the self-denial of the closeted ones (George Rekers!) by being comfortable with ourselves.

Matthew
August 5th, 2010 | LINK

1. Hitler agrees with these people that gays are inferior. I disagree with them.
2. plus, the conservative Catholic nations of Latin America are giving Gays the right to marry.
3. If that wasn’t enough, Osama bin Laden agrees with everything these people said, including
4. On gays participating, what important person helped the Civil Rights movement be won? An African American on the SUPREME COURT.
5. Our Constitution never gives one religion the right to put their religion into the law. Actually, it forbids every religion from being codified. All religions and ways of life are equal.

Some arguments are so fallacious you need to face-palm them five times.

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.