The dynamic duo is back, and admit it, you missed us! Peterson and Zack fill you in on all the crazy fun stuff that’s been happening in their lives, Peterson brings us some more queer erotic poetry, and then the two launch into a roundtable on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Prop 8, Trans Day of […]
I’m frustrated. I probably shouldn’t even be writing, but I am. It’s Monday. What’s the big news in the LGBT world? Kind of two biggies I guess… 1) Those crazy Prop 8 proponents filed their 134-page argument to the Circuit of Appeals. I could wade through the whole thing for you if you’d like, but […]
Of course, in the wake of today’s decision, Protect Marriage is vying for an indefinite stay of today’s ruling and an appeal, as we knew they would. What’s sad is that Andy Pugno talks as if he hasn’t even read the decision (maybe he hasn’t). Protect Marriage’s press release reiterates the same old demonizing stereotypes […]
Now here’s some good news. I’m not going to linger on the issue, because I’ve certainly written enough about it before (on August 13, August 28, September 11, and October 15). Think back to last year’s election in Washington State when Referendum 71 was on the ballot, threatening the marriage-like domestic partnership law. Ultimately Ref. […]
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. […]
It’s been a while since we’ve checked in with our old pals Andy Pugno and Ron Prentice from Protect Marriage. (I blame Netvibes for the problems they’ve been having with their feeds.) Let’s see what kind of self-victimizing drivel they’ve been churning out in regards to the Proposition 8 case. (If you just want to […]
If you didn’t get a chance to watch today’s oral arguments for the Prop 8 appeal, you didn’t necessarily miss much. Nothing was decided, though the questions from the judges certainly gave us some interesting insight into their perspectives.
The first hour was dedicated to the questions of standing. Do the defendant-intervenors (Protect Marriage) have standing to continue defending Prop 8 since they are not named as actual defendants? Cooper argued for them essentially saying that yes, they do, because if the Attorney General will not defend them, no one can. In doing so, he misconstrued the Karcher case, in which former New Jersey legislators were not given standing (according to Professor David Cruz). Also, the passing of the initiative was a “check” by the people on the CA Supreme Court. Boies countered that the initiative was a legislative act, and that essentially, the people do not also have the executive authority to defend it if their AG won’t.
Basically, the California Ballot Initiative Process is messed up. Two of the judges on the panel seemed interested in the California Supreme Court certifying the DI’s standing, which would alleviate them of that responsibility. Boies pointed out that his arguments would be the same either way, and that awaiting such a decision would merely delay the completion of the case unnecessarily.
As for Imperial County, the discussion was whether the County Clerk is directly impacted by the injunction against enforcing Proposition 8. Boies argued that the role of the clerk is ministerial—that they simply carry out state law as enforced by the Attorney General. Professor David Cruz, who was in the live chat with us, made the brilliant point that San Francisco was not allowed to give same-sex couples marriage licenses in 2004, so in the wake of the injunction, clerks should also not be allowed to not give same-sex couples marriage licenses.
It is my understanding that standing will only be granted to one of these groups, if any. (If no standing is found for either Protect Marriage or Imperial County, then the merits of the case will not be addressed and Judge Walker’s decision that Prop 8 is unconstitutional will stand.)
The rest of the oral arguments were much of what we are already used to.
Cooper kept trying to say the same old arguments about preserving the institution of marriage and all its unique benefits. The judges pointed out that gays and lesbians essentially have everything marriage is defined by except the word. (Therese Stewart, attorney for San Francisco, also later pointed out that California manages all parenting and child-rearing completely separate from marriage.) Cooper offered, “The word is the institution,” trying his best to argue it is okay for the people to take away a right.
Olson countered with a very concise message that this was discrimination motivated by animus. The elimination of Prop 8 does nothing to harm heterosexual couples. He also hammered home that sexual orientation was immutable, and that the “crazy quilt” (all the different marriage statuses that exist in CA as a result of Prop 8) demonstrate just how irrational it is.
The end of the day is slightly anti-climactic, as we await the decision of the panel. If they want the CA Supreme Court to chime in on the standing of the defendant-intervenors, any real decision in the case will be delayed. If they find that neither Protect Marriage or Imperial County have standing, then the case is over and Prop 8 is overturned. If either group is found to have standing, then the case continues and the merits weighed in on.
Nonetheless, it was an important day, if for no other reason than the fact that these arguments were televised. While the first hour’s debate on standing was dry and probably of little interested, the ensuing hour and a half discussion about gay people was poignant. I encourage everyone to watch or read the transcripts and share with others. This is a discussion that everybody needs to hear.
I’m frustrated. I probably shouldn’t even be writing, but I am.
It’s Monday. What’s the big news in the LGBT world? Kind of two biggies I guess…
1) Those crazy Prop 8 proponents filed their 134-page argument to the Circuit of Appeals. I could wade through the whole thing for you if you’d like, but today I just can’t be bothered. It’s the same old nonsense: procreation, victim status, etc. Read the P8TT links, because a lot of others have already dissected it pretty well.
2) Tomorrow the Senate will vote on whether to vote on whether to let Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell be considered for repeal by the Joint Chiefs at a later, uncertain date. And who is getting all the media attention to affect this cloture vote? Lady Gaga.
Kudos to Gaga, really. She’s taking this pretty seriously and being strategic about encouraging us Little Monsters to call our Senators and tonight she’s in Maine targeting undecided Senators there.
But I’m frustrated because we’re drowning in politics. If you look at all the groups who are working to support LGBT equality, you see a lot of political strategy (lobbying, direct action political pressure, support for gay candidates, support for gay-friendly candidates, gay Republicans who don’t care about LGBT issues) and legal efforts. Where is the education? Who’s doing it? Our Community Centers get really lousy financial support and currently only reach a few metropolitan areas. They do great work, but with what they have to work with, they’re barely making dents.
I live in Middle America. Where I live I face housing discrimination, employment discrimination, and marriage discrimination. Sure I can stream LOGO and watch Will & Grace reruns on Lifetime, but my area is still unwelcoming for queer folks and there is minimal queer visibility. But of course, a vote on a vote on a potential repeal and an election of lesser evils have to be our main priority so that six years from now we can elect a President with the same talking points that we loved about this one. I have to be patient; it’s not our turn yet. We’re still stuck on survival and just getting by on the scraps of victory we can get.
Well, when does anyone educate Middle America? Our movement is all about money and influence. And money. But decades of money and influence haven’t really changed life out here in the sticks. Who’s going to start educating people outside of the maybe-six gay haven cities? Where’s the national campaign to say, “All those things you believe about homosexuality? You’re wrong.”
Frankly, at this point, I struggle to even care about this DADT vote. It’s not real repeal—there’s no end to discharges in sight—but we’re such scaredy cats we’re not even sure if Senator Reid should take the vote if he isn’t sure he has the votes. All that work to get nowhere because of the importance of the midterm elections. Meanwhile, to their credit, the Log Cabin Republicans were getting the law declared unconstitutional on its face while the rest of us (myself ashamedly included) weren’t even paying attention. Of course, the LCRs never hedge on supporting Republicans whether they’re anti-gay or not, so we had reason not to trust them, but they showed us just how inefficient we can be with both our time and money, especially since we’re still not sure whether we have the votes for a vote that doesn’t even repeal. But hey, we’ve got Lady Gaga on our side. That’ll make the difference.
I’m not seeing it. I’m not seeing change. What I do see are schools that have unchangingly negative climates. I see universities that have unchangingly negative climates. I see communities that have unchangingly negative climates. I see the same old myths and stereotypes perpetuated with the same full force and getting the same full attention by the media.
And I can’t help but worry that on the day that all the legal victories are secure, the work will end, as if that’s all it takes. In the meantime, Middle America continues to be a wasteland for real LGBT change.
I haven’t written about Prop 8 lately, but only because I feel like folks have been too eager to get a fix when most of what’s happening now is just standard legal procedure. If you haven’t paid attention over the last week, here’s a quick catch-up, and then below I’ll respond to some statements from Protect Marriage.
First, here’s a quick reminder of the vocab, because I know it can get confusing. The plaintiffs are the good guys (represented by Olson and Boies), the defendants are the actual government officials, and the proponents are the Protect Marriage folks who stepped in as defendant-intervenors.
» When Judge Walker first overturned Prop 8 two weeks ago, he implemented a temporary stay for his own ruling for the sole purpose of giving the defendants/proponents a window to demonstrate why the decision should be stayed until after appeal. This was a tough case to make since he said in the decision that same-sex marriage in no way harmed anybody or any marriages.
» We learned that Judge Walker would make his decision on this matter last Thursday (August 12). We waited with baited breath through a three-hour window in which we thought we would hear. Couples were waiting in line to marry and extra city officials had been deputized to help perform the marriages. Finally, sometime in the fourth hour we learned that he would be lifting the stay, but it would still be in effect until this Wednesday (tomorrow, August 18).
Many were underwhelmed by this response. Given that the original decision had been so unabashed in outlining the harm to gays and lesbians by Proposition 8, this seemed an unnecessary extension of that harm. Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry called it Justice Delayed. The extension of the stay created room for the Appeals Court to offer their own stay without there being a window of legal same-sex marriage.
» Yesterday, the appeals court did issue their stay until that round of the trial is over. This is disappointing news for most. The court did expedite the case, but that won’t necessarily appease many, as the trial date is in December, and a decision won’t come until potentially months afterward.
» There is still the question of standing, whether the proponents have the right to appeal at all since they are not the defendants. A decision in that matter could end everything else. If that were to happen, Judge Walker’s ruling would apply, but to California only. Still, it would be an important precedent for future trials in other parts of the country.
That’s where we stand now. Same-sex couples still cannot marry in California. A final decision in that matter is still at least half a year away, if that. It’s odd to recognize that we had this huge victory two weeks ago and yet we don’t have much to show for it.
In the meantime, we can still take a whack at Protect Marriage and their ugly gloating over basic procedure that is not really a victory for them at all.
We are gratified that Judge Walker has continued until August 18th the temporary stay of his decision. We will promptly seek from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals a stay pending the final resolution of the case. On appeal, we look forward with confidence to a decision vindicating the democratic process and the basic constitutional authority of the 7 million Californians who voted to retain the traditional definition of marriage. The decision whether to redefine the institution of marriage is for the people themselves to make, not a single district court judge, especially without appellate scrutiny.
This afternoon, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted a request by Prop 8 proponents to stay U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling, thereby upholding the vote of 7 million Californians while the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case is heard on appeal. The arguments will occur in San Francisco the week of December 6, 2010.
“California voters spoke clearly on Prop 8, and we’re glad to see their votes will remain valid while the legal challenges work their way up through the courts. Invalidating the people’s vote based on just one judge’s opinion would not have been appropriate, and would have shaken the people’s confidence in our elections and the right to vote itself,” said Andy Pugno, general counsel for ProtectMarriage.com, the defendants in the Perry v Schwarzenegger case.
Always eager to play the victim! Enjoining Judge Walker’s decision would have validated my confidence in the judiciary to be a balanced check, but that’s just me.
Pugno went further in an email to Prop 8 supporters:
As we pointed out in our motion, Judge Walker’s decision totally ignores virtually all legal precedents, the well-recognized public interest served by fostering traditional marriage, and even common sense itself.
Of course, he has to raise the stakes so he can ask for more money two paragraphs later. He’s so appreciative of the prayers and support. Won’t you give these whiny brats a special donation so they can continue to waste the government’s time with unconstitutional, discriminatory ideas?
Responding to Protect Marriage’s posts is not always the most fun exercise. Sometimes it’s downright f-in annoying because their statements are always so full of BS. *ahem* But that’s why we respond, right? Rather than paragraph by paragraph as per my norm, I’m going to parse Charles Cooper’s latest statement sentence by sentence. Feel free to go to the Protect Marriage site if you want to read the statement without my annotations.
Today, a single federal judge has negated the will of the people of California.
No, he didn’t. He overturned an unconstitutional mandate determined by 52% of the valid vote-casters of California who participated in the November, 2008 election in fulfillment of his Constitutionally-mandated responsibility as a federal judge.
The central premise of the court’s ruling is that it is irrational for the citizenry to decide to retain the traditional definition of marriage.
Technically, he ruled that the idea of retaining such a definition was irrational, not the idea of the citizenry making decisions.
The court holds that the ubiquitous definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman is a historical curiosity that serves no purpose whatsoever, but rather is based solely on anti-gay biases.
Shocking as it may be, that is, in fact, true.
Indeed, the court went so far as to brand as “irrational” all supporters of traditional marriage, which is the vast majority of all people, in American and throughout the world.
No, here you’re quite wrong. He made no such judgment about the people who supported the referendum. In his own words, the word “irrational” appears twice in the decision. On p. 109, he uses it to describe using sexual orientation to classify people. On p. 133, he uses it to describe the post-hoc state interests that your defense team, Mr. Cooper, espoused at trial. At no point did Judge Walker refer to supporters in this way.
As New York’s high court recently recognized, until very recently it “was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex.” [Hernandez v. Robles, 855 N.E.2d at 8 (N.Y. 2006)].
And then recently happened.
The historical record reveals that the traditional definition of marriage is grounded in society’s interest in channeling potentially procreative sexual relationships between men and women into enduring, stable family units to increase the likelihood that children will be raised by the man and woman whose union brought them into the world.
The court record and the expert witnesses reveal that that’s a load of malarkey. For example, the traditional definition of marriage included coverture, the idea that a man owned his wife and all of her belongings. It also never had procreative ability as a prerequisite nor required procreation after affirmation.
Judge Walker’s ruling sweeps aside this historical understanding of marriage.
The one that has constantly changed over the ages? I’d say he did the opposite.
In its place, he has announced that “Marriage is the state recognition of a couple’s choice to live with each other, to remain committed to one another and to form a household based on their own feelings about one another and to join in an economic partnership and support one another and any dependants.”
In its place? That’s what it was on August 3rd, too.
His opinion thus treats children as a mere afterthought when it comes to marriage.
Quite to the contrary, Mr. Cooper. I might refer you to Judge Walker’s Findings of Fact 35, 41, 49, 55, 56, 69, 70, 71, and 72. You might be surprised what you learn when you actually read the decision, considering you obviously didn’t pay attention to any of the testimony.
The Court’s disregard for the historical purposes of marriage would require California to embark on a novel experiment with the fundamental institution of marriage.
Wouldn’t be the first time! Besides, how many decades have to pass before ideas aren’t considered “novel” or “experimental” anymore? Or heck, centuries? Emperor Nero is rolling in his tomb.
In doing so, it threatens to harm the vital interests historically served by marriage.
Scary language. No substance.
The United States Constitution provides no warrant for this result, as demonstrated by the all-but-unanimous judgment of other federal courts that have addressed the issue.
Looks like Judge Walker found some pretty solid warrant for this result. Besides, no such judgment has ever heard this kind of testimony on the issue. Look what happens when there’s real information provided in a trial about gays and lesbians!
In addition to dismissing the traditional definition of marriage, the judge incredibly found that children don’t need fathers. Or mothers. To state this proposition is to refute it.
No, that’s not what the judge found at all. The judge found, based on substantial research and evidence, that the genders of a child’s parents do not determine how well that child is raised.
And the court also found that there is no benefit whatsoever for a child to be raised by its own biological parents.
Fortunately, the case is not over. Judge Walker acknowledged from the outset that “this case is only touching down in this Court, … it will have a life after this Court, and what happens here, in many ways, is only a prelude to what is going to happen later.” July 2, 2009 Tr. of Hr’g at 12. About that he was right. We have already filed a notice of appeal and look forward to the next stage of this litigation.
And we’re all so glad you will continue to spin your foundationless vitriol for us all to see.
Is he really that stupid or does Protect Marriage just pay him enough that he’s willing to sound like it for the sake of the case?
I’m sure such a statement will get them a ton of donations, though.
(You can find all my Protect Marriage responses listed in italics in my Prop 8 Archive.)
Of course, in the wake of today’s decision, Protect Marriage is vying for an indefinite stay of today’s ruling and an appeal, as we knew they would. What’s sad is that Andy Pugno talks as if he hasn’t even read the decision (maybe he hasn’t). Protect Marriage’s press release reiterates the same old demonizing stereotypes that Judge Walker disregarded. Take a look:
SACRAMENTO – Andy Pugno, general counsel for ProtectMarriage.com, the official proponents of Proposition 8, released the following statement today in response to the ruling of U.S. District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case:
“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.
Pugno must have missed the part where Walker wrote, “That the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant, as ‘fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.'” We can thank the Jehovah’s Witnesses for that precedent.
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.
Actually, the court doesn’t say that. What he says is that the proponents of Prop 8 had discriminatory intent, which they spread through fear-based propaganda that fed into untrue stereotypes. The law is discriminatory, whether the voters understood it to be or not. (See Findings of Fact 45, 47, and 57-68, 79, and 80.)
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.
It’s a cute line, but it’s simply not true. The experts’ testimony showed that the “traditional definition of marriage” was quite shortsighted and that given the equality of individuals in marriages, there is no compelling interest in maintaining only opposite-sex marriages. (See Findings of Fact 21, 26, 27, 31, 32, 33, 34, and 35, among others.)
It’s amazing (but unsurprising) that Protect Marriage continues to encourage the evil misperception that gay and lesbians put children at risk. (See Findings of Fact 70, 71, 72, 76, and 79.)
We are confident that the trial court record we built will help us ultimately prevail on appeal and reverse today’s ruling.
You mean like how your star witness’s testimony was thrown out?
Reversing today’s decision will also serve as a reminder that the role of the courts is to interpret and apply the law only as enacted by the people and their elected representatives, not to impose new social policies.
Andy, did they not teach you at McGeorge School of Law that the Constitution is the ultimate law of the land, not the whim of a simple majority? (I’d be embarrassed to be a McGeorge alum today!)
And federal precedent is clear that there is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage. To prevail in the end, our opponents have a very difficult task of convincing the U.S. Supreme Court to abandon precedent and invent a new constitutional right.
Actually, after today’s decision, that is simply wrong. Today’s decision affirmed that marriage is a constitutional right and that to prohibit same-sex marriage is simply to discriminate based on sex and sexual orientation. There is nothing new in this decision except validation for the lives of gays and lesbians throughout time and space.
Best of luck to Andy Pugno and the Protect Marriage team. You’re going to need it.
Think back to last year’s election in Washington State when Referendum 71 was on the ballot, threatening the marriage-like domestic partnership law. Ultimately Ref. 71 passed, preserving the almost-equality the state had achieved. But there was another problem.
Protect Marriage Washington wanted to hide the names of all the people they’d gotten to sign the petition that put Ref. 71 on the ballot, claiming they needed “protected.” I guess they were scared the gays were going to come after them with pitchforks and dildos or something; I don’t know.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said it is vitally important that states be able to ensure that signatures on referendum petitions are authentic.
“Public disclosure thus helps ensure that the only signatures counted are those that should be, and that the only referenda placed on the ballot are those that garner enough valid signatures,” Roberts said. “Public disclosure also promotes transparency and accountability in the electoral process to an extent other measures cannot.”
I couldn’t agree more. The subject of this post might sound a bit harsh, but I think it reflects the true importance of such transparency. If people can initiate legislation with no accountability, then there won’t be any check on majoritarianism. If we start allowing citizens to legislate from the shadows, then groups like Protect Marriage can start taking away people’s rights left and right without having to explain themselves.
Unfortunately, Justice Thomas doesn’t seem to be concerned:
Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the court’s opinion.
“In my view, compelled disclosure of signed referendum and initiative petitions under the Washington Public Records severely burdens those rights and chills citizen participation in the referendum process,” Thomas said.
You know what? It should chill citizen participation. If you aren’t willing to stand by your signature on a legislative petition, you shouldn’t be signing a legislative petition!
Well, Justice Thomas never fails to disappoint us, but I’m glad to see the rest of the Court saw the importance of the transparency.
This decision seems to put the kabbash to the whole “irreparable harm if the names are released” nonsense. Yeah, we’ll boycott you and maybe even protest you if you actively participate in discriminating against us. Welcome to democracy!
ProtectMarriage.com 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.
It’s been a while since we’ve checked in with our old pals Andy Pugno and Ron Prentice from Protect Marriage. (I blame Netvibes for the problems they’ve been having with their feeds.) Let’s see what kind of self-victimizing drivel they’ve been churning out in regards to the Proposition 8 case. (If you just want to see a complete list of the baseless arguments found in these posts, jump to the bottom.)
Back on March 30th, Andy Pugno wrote “What Goes Around, Comes Around. Maybe.” This was another whiny post about why he thinks the No on 8 side should have to turn over all their internal documents. Not much to be missed from this post:
Not surprisingly, Equality California and the ACLU have appealed Judge Walker’s order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. And Judge Walker has already issued a ‘stay’ of his own order for document disclosure for a week, while our opponents ask the Ninth Circuit to intervene. This means that even now – months after our side was forced to disclose internal campaign records to our opponents – we continue to wait while our opponents refuse to disclose the same kind of evidence.
As always, we appreciate your support and will keep you posted as the process continues.
They are really petulant, spoiled children. They complain about every little thing they can think of to complain about and then expect to get more donations so they can continue whining.
On April 2, Ron Prentice chimed in with a vomit-inducing posts I’ve ever read on ProtectMarriage.com, which is saying something. And I’m not using “vomit-inducing” in a sophomoric way; the gushiness of this post, called “Spring is in the Air,” truly made me nauseous. After pandering to Christians (for Easter) and Jews (for Passover), Ron starts waxing poetic:
Regardless of one’s religious views, though, this is also the time when spring is in the air! Nature all around us is beginning to come alive — wildflowers bloom, the grasses are lush with greenery, a new generation of animals are born to the flock, and the air is filled with the sounds of birds chirping and nature awakening.
Some truths are simply enduring. Spring follows winter. Rivers flow to the sea. The sun rises at dawn and sets at dusk. It takes the fruit of a man and the womb of woman to make a baby.
Blech. Essentialism makes my brain hurt.
Last week, Andy Pugno sent out an “Update on Perry v Schwarzenegger Case” with a snapshot of their closing arguments and evidence. When you read it, it sounds like they’d like to undo feminism entirely.
And while it is true that the traditional model of marriage between a man and a woman has been disputed of late in the United States, a set of universal functions of marriage remains:
Complementing nature with culture to ensure the reproductive cycle;
Providing children with both a mother and a father whenever possible;
Providing children with their biological parents whenever possible;
Bringing men and women together for both practical and symbolic purposes; and,
Providing men with a stake in family and society.
In addition, there are corresponding universal features of the institution of marriage, which include the following:
High social and legal authority and attractive incentives supporting the institution;
Maleness and femaleness;
A definition of eligible partners;
A public dimension;
Encouragement of procreation under specific conditions;
Mutual support between men and women and duties toward children; and
An emphasis on complementary parental roles and relationships.
Orphans, foster kids, potential adoptees, and actual adoptees can SUCK IT!
Single parents, divorcees, elderly couples, and heterosexual couples who can’t naturally procreate can SUCK IT!
Men should get to own their wives—and everything in the marriage—just like in the old days!
Women, you better have the house clean and the dinner ready or you aren’t doing your God-mandated job!
Anybody who doesn’t like our ideas of reinforcing hypermasculinity and the oppression of women can SUCK IT! We’re throwing everybody, including all women, under the bus just to stick it to the gays!
And of course, they ask for more financial support for their “epic battle” to reset cultural norms back at least 60 years.
And in the latest post that just went up yesterday, Ron Prentice wants to tell us about “The Impact on Children.” In his first big paragraph, he makes this vacuous claim:
Further, experts around the globe agree that the ideal family structure for a child is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage.
He goes on to say:
The contention that there is no discernable difference in the impact on the cognitive, emotional and social well-being of a child between opposite-sex married couples and homosexual couples just isn’t borne out by social science.
In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbian women or gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of lesbian women or gay men is compromised relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children’s psychosocial growth.
Yet, Prentice just keeps on spreading the lies. His post is chock full of them. It’s disgusting. I don’t even feel like quoting any more of it. As someone who never has and never will meet my biological parents, I just can’t explain how angry it makes me to be scapegoated by idiots like Prentice specifically to serve his oppression of me. It’s slimy.
And if it weren’t bad enough that he’s disseminating misinformation, he’s using it as a scare tactic to purloin more money from his mindless followers. I feel bad for these people. They are brainwashed enough to believe this shit (without citations) and scared enough by it to keep forking over the dough.
I can’t wait for Protect Marriage to lose and equality to win. I like the idea of a “social experiment” called justice.
In case you’re interested, these four posts included the following memes:
» “Wait” (It’s a “social experiment.” We don’t know the long term effects!)
» “Reverse Discrimination” (It’s not fair they didn’t have to release their documents. This hurts the institution of marriage!)
» “Special Rights” (Why should we risk our children to suit the “political agenda and desire of adults“?)
» “Traditional” (There are historic universal truths about the nature of marriage.)
» “Essentialist” (Simple biology explains how and why we should recognize relationships.)
» “Children” (It doesn’t matter how untrue our lies are, our children are still at risk, so be scared and give us more money!)
» “Victim” (Thousands of Californians voted for Proposition 8 and their votes need to be respected!)
» “One Man & One Woman” (We subscribe to gender norms and we intend to force everybody to do the same. Male power!)