Tuesday, February 7, 2012

What they are NOT Saying about the Prop 8 ruling

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has spoken. I can barely keep up with all of the news feeds. I also have an email identity that is subscribed to scores of fundamentalist outlets. ADF screamed "judicial tyranny" while National Organization for Marriage's Brian Brown used the ruling to send out a "send me money" with the subject "EVERYTHING NOW HANGS IN THE BALANCE!" For her part, Maggie F. Gallagher opined:
In a breathtaking exercise in ill-natured illogic, a divided Ninth Circuit ruled 2–1 that because Prop 8 does not take away civil-union benefits for same-sex couples, it’s an unconstitutional exercise in irrational animus towards gay people.
 I don't even know what "ill-natured illogic" is. I'm sure it's not good.

Back the hell up!

It hasn't been that long ago! The reason that ProtectCalifornia/NOM did not persuade the Ninth Circuit might have something to do with the fact that they failed to offer a meaningful case     relevant or otherwise. Their own witness conceded that we would be a better country with marriage equality. They could not offer any testimony or evidence that marriage equality was harmful to society or traditional marriage.

The Court of Appeals doesn't solicit evidence and they didn't hear testimony. They work with the record that is. If appealed, the Supreme Court is going to do the same thing     if they even agree to hear the case which is far from certain. Indeed, it would not shock me if NOM decides to accept their loss in California rather than risk an adverse ruling from the Supreme Court.

I don't have a crystal ball but I do have a good memory. The simple fact is that we had the better case and we had the better lawyers. "They" can feign all the outrage that they want (and will). That will not alter the very basic fact that there does not exist a coherent secular argument in opposition to marriage equality.
Enhanced by Zemanta

1 comment:

  1. Excellent post, David.

    "That will not alter the very basic fact that there does not exist a coherent secular argument in opposition to marriage equality."

    In the absence of availability of the taped hearing, the religious right has banked on their followers not reading the transcript, claiming that the proponents built a solid case and that the judges are guilty of "judicial activism." I remember the trial well, too, and you are absolutely correct that in the end, the proponents' expert agreed that marriage equality will not harm society.


Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.