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

Californians Are Marrying and Prop 8’s Legal Supporters Are Thoroughly Pissed

Jim Burroway

June 28th, 2013

Your schadenfreude for the day comes from ProtectMarriage, the official non-standing defenders of Prop 8:

We just received word that the Ninth Circuit, without waiting for the Supreme Court’s decision to become final and depriving us of our right to ask for reconsideration, has rushed forward to order same-sex marriage licenses.

This outrageous act tops off a chronic pattern of lawlessness, throughout this case, by judges and politicians hell-bent on thwarting the vote of the people to redefine marriage by any means, even outright corruption.

Homosexual marriage is not happening because the people changed their mind.  It isn’t happening because the appellate courts declared a new constitutional right.  It’s happening because enemies of the people have abused their power to manipulate the system and render the people voiceless.

The resumption of same-sex marriage this day has been obtained by illegitimate means.  If our opponents rejoice in achieving their goal in a dishonorable fashion, they should be ashamed.

It remains to be seen whether the fight can go on, but either way, it is a disgraceful day for California.

I find every word of that press release fantastically delicious.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0

Neil
June 28th, 2013 | LINK

Hurray for disgraceful days in California!

Rob San Diego
June 28th, 2013 | LINK

It brought a smile to my face as well. Maybe all of them will move out of the state, like maybe to Russia, they all have something in common there.

Richard Rush
June 28th, 2013 | LINK

Make no mistake. We are living in the End Times . . . of the inequality against gay people.

“As California goes, so goes the nation”

Bwahahahahaha!

Lord_Byron
June 28th, 2013 | LINK

They have no other legal recourse. The SCOTUS punted on the case and they have no other sources of appeal. What could they possibly do to carry on this in California?

Gene in L.A.
June 28th, 2013 | LINK

The original group of gay people married in California have been living married in the state for quite a while now. If these foes of equality want to continue their fight, they should be made to show how they or anyone else has been hurt by the existence of those gay married couples. That should put a quick end to the whole affair.

Priya Lynn
June 28th, 2013 | LINK

I sent them this message:

“Regarding your statement: “The resumption of same-sex marriage this day has been obtained by illegitimate means. If our opponents rejoice in achieving their goal in a dishonorable fashion, they should be ashamed.”.

Oh, no we should not be ashamed. The people of California deprived gay and lesbian couples of marriage by illegitmate means. The rights of minorities should NEVER be put up for a vote. It was you who behaved dishonourably, it was righteous and honourable that the court decided this issue that should NEVER have been put up for a vote.”.

Hyhybt
June 28th, 2013 | LINK

In case anyone was worried they might have been accused of being gracious in defeat…

Sir Andrew
June 28th, 2013 | LINK

Wah-wah-wah. What a bunch of babies.

Ben In Oakland
June 28th, 2013 | LINK

I’m not going to get too worked up about it.

The interesting question is, do they really think they have any options? Do they really think SCOTUS is going to reverse itself on this because they ask it to?

I doubt that would happen, and I think this is why. I can’t prove this, of course. Personally, I think a deal was cut among the supreme court members. No over-arching marriage decision at all, a minimal decision on prop. 8 and DOMA– in exchange for Scalia giving his imprimatur in the prop. 8 case.

Why do I think this? 1) Because the decisions actually failed to deal with any of the truly substantive issues around DOMA or the Prop. 8 case– the place of gay people in our society, religious and social bigotry passing as public policy, the outright lies of the pro-8 people, their main witness’s recanting of his testimony, or any of it. 2) Scalia has very few principles, but one of them is definitely “get the queers.” His signature on the prop. 8 decision is just too unlike him. 3) Scalia’s petulant comments last week regarding “moral cases.”

Sir Andrew
June 28th, 2013 | LINK

Lord Byron: Following a SCOTUS ruling, the losers have 25 days to petition the Court for a rehearing. Thus, SCOTUS doesn’t make its decision final until that period has passed. The proponents (See “babies” above) believe that the Supremes would gladly rethink this thing that they’ve thought carefully about for several weeks just because the babies ask for it. Now they’re upset because people are getting married before they’ve had a chance to stop them again. Watch them file an emergency request to have the stay put back in place. Anything to make gays suffer for a few more days.

Stephen
June 28th, 2013 | LINK

Ben, isn’t Scalia’s son the priest involved in the Roman Catholic ex-gay racket?

And these people really need to stop.

Ben in Oakland
June 29th, 2013 | LINK

I believe so. I remember something about it. But he has several sons. I met one some years ago. Nice enough man.

Mark F.
June 29th, 2013 | LINK

Ben,

I suppose it may be a long while before we find out went on behind the scenes here. The vote split on the Prop 8 standing issue was pretty weird, however. You do realize that Justice Sotomayer also voted against granting standing, correct? How do you explain that?

Mark F.
June 29th, 2013 | LINK

Sorry, Sotomayer voted for granting standing.

Désirée
June 29th, 2013 | LINK

I can actually understand a vote to grant standing. As the other side argued, since the basic goal of a proposition is to allow the people to create laws that the legislature won’t; after said law is created, the legislature is probably not of a mind to defend it, so if it ever goes to court (as Prop 8 did) the Governor or AG can de facto veto it by simply not defending it.

I’m not a fan of the proposition system but if you have one, expecting the government to be on your side throughout the process is insane. If they were, you wouldn’t need propositions to begin with.

Greg
June 29th, 2013 | LINK

“…depriving us of our right to ask for reconsideration…”

Hyperbole much?

Jen
June 29th, 2013 | LINK

It’s a karmic irony. A law that was put in place to take away rights already bestowed on some people was declared unlawful to do so. And now people that voted to take away other peoples rights are mad that their rights were taken away to vote to take away other peoples rights. I think there is an opportunity for empathy here. There is a reason it’s called Democracy and not Mob Rule

Hunter
June 29th, 2013 | LINK

Isn’t it interesting how quickly equality opponents resort to name-calling? But then, that’s all they’ve got.

jpeckjr
June 29th, 2013 | LINK

You’d think that people with no standing would have the decency to sit down and shut up. Not that these people have any decency.

jerry
June 29th, 2013 | LINK

I’ sitting here spitting with laughter. I think this must be something from the Onion. It’s just too funny to be real.

If it’s real my schadenfreude meter might get jammed in full on.

It is full out insanity to get pissed because someone does something that has no bearing on your life.

iDavid
June 29th, 2013 | LINK

EXODUS PROP 8 & DOMA … THREE STRIKES YOU’RE OUT!!!

Ben in Oakland
June 29th, 2013 | LINK

Mark, I thought the whole thing was pretty weird. Something, quite apart from Scaley’s vote, strikes me as odd about it.

Rick2L
June 29th, 2013 | LINK

‘…enemies of the people…’ Enemies of the people? Socialist catch-phrase much?

Steve
June 29th, 2013 | LINK

The vote to deny standing may just have been strategic. Many think that they didn’t have the votes to uphold Prop8 on the merits, so they decided to deny standing in order to keep the issue in the lower courts for another couple of years.

Ben in Oakland
June 29th, 2013 | LINK

Steve–another way to say what I said.

Timothy Kincaid
June 29th, 2013 | LINK

Mark and Ben, yes Father Paul Scalia is on the board of Courage, the Catholic ex-gay group. He’s a rather nasty homophobe who rants about the evils of the homosexual lifestyle (which mostly exists in his fever dreams).

Timothy Kincaid
June 29th, 2013 | LINK

Okay, guys, here’s the thing. Yes they do have the right to request reconsideration.

But the 9th Circuit has no obligation to keep the stay in place while they do so.

Richard Rush
June 29th, 2013 | LINK

I’ve been having more fun this week than I ever thought a homo would be allowed to have. I never imagined that the End Times referred to the end of our inequality. Clearly, a follow-up book will need to be written for the Left Behind series to correct all the previous misconceptions. Instead of the sanctimonious crowd shedding tears of joy as they rise into heaven, they are crying and screaming as they descend into a dark pit of irrelevance.

Mark F.
June 29th, 2013 | LINK

Well, the court had never before granted standing to a private party to defend an state ballot initiative.

It seems obvious that ballot initiatives will now have to be written to either require the AG to make a “good faith” effort to defend them, or appoint someone who will.

Mark F.
June 29th, 2013 | LINK

Yep, the 9th Circuit is following the law.

Steve
June 29th, 2013 | LINK

Also remember that, even if they had standing to do something, a stay is only supposed to be granted if they have a reasonable chance of success.

TomTallis
June 29th, 2013 | LINK

They’ve just filed a motion with Anthony Kennedy for an “emergency injunction” to stop the marriages. My only question is, “What emergency?”

Also, just what part of “You don’t have standing don’t they understand?”

Ben in Oakland
June 29th, 2013 | LINK

Timothy, I think you meant FEVERED dreams, or perhaps fervid, or even fearful.

Nick
July 2nd, 2013 | LINK

“The resumption of same-sex marriage this day has been obtained by illegitimate means.”

I’m not losing too much sleep over this, since the deprivation of marriage rights that they are defending was also enacted by illegitimate means…

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.