Protect Marriage: No Evidence, Only Spin

Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+0Share on Reddit0Share on Tumblr0Email this to someone

In the wake of yesterday’s closing arguments in the Prop 8 trial, it seems Protect Marriage might be concerned with damage control. Rather than a rambling long blog post like we’ve seen throughout the trial, Andy Pugno just gives us a brief little press release. It’s not very strong, despite its attempt to suggest otherwise. Makes Strong Closing Argument to Protect Constitutionality of Traditional Marriage

Today marked the end of the Perry v Schwarzenegger trial to protect and preserve the constitutionality of marriage between a man and a woman.

Actually, Andy, I don’t think anyone has ever suggested in this case that marriage between a man and a woman is unconstitutional. Was that what you were worried about? We could have avoided this whole thing if you had understood that from the start…

Since the lawsuit was filed more than one year ago and the trial began in January, we now await Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling, fully aware that we are still early in the process, as most legal experts expect that the issue will eventually land at the Unites States Supreme Court.

Regardless of the outcome of the trial held in San Francisco, we are very pleased with the fullness of the record we have created to support the longstanding policy favoring traditional marriage, and we think that record will serve us well on appeal.

What record? The one “expert”? The no evidence? The only thing the record is full of is BS you have manufactured.

What is ultimately at stake in this case is the notion that legislative decisions on policy such as government’s recognition of marriage belong to the people and their elected representatives; it is not for the courts to legislate from the bench.

That’s not what courts do Andy. Are you sure you’ve studied American law? Courts determine the Constitutionality of laws in order to protect all people, not just the majority. It’s this thing called “checks and balances.” You might want to stop by a middle school civics classroom to get a better understanding.

Very simply put, the public has a strong interest in channeling natural procreation into stable and enduring relationships between men and women and increase the likelihood that those children will be raised by both a mother and a father, and those interests justify the unique and special status of traditional marriage.

That doesn’t even make sense. We don’t restrict procreation to married couples, nor do we restrict marriage to couples that will have children. Having parents of both genders offers no unique benefit; in fact, having two moms has been shown to be better. It might be “simply put,” but it’s also “simply stupid” and “simply wrong.”

For our opponents to say, as they have repeatedly, that there is no rational reason for limiting marriage to a man and a woman except for animus and bigotry is to spurn 7 million Californian voters, 70 of 108 judges, the vast majority of state legislatures and electorate after electorate who support marriage between a man and woman.

Yup. The truth hurts.

That’s all you got, Andy?

I guess it is.

Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+0Share on Reddit0Share on Tumblr0Email this to someone
Back to Top | Scroll down for Comments!

Write a Comment