Obscanity: You'll know it when you see it

While GLADD is urging folks to come out to their families at Thanksgiving, Maggie Gallagher of NOM fame (you remember – the gathering storm that brought us some of the best commercial parodies of all time?) offers up some helpful tips on smacking down your gay relatives if they try to talk about their own lives at the dinner table.

Summary: Step 1: Tell them marriage is between a man and a woman for a reason (procreation argument, yadda yadda yadda). Step 2: Refute the charge of bigotry by saying that it’s not bigoted to treat different things differently; it’s just common sense. (I’m sure that argument will go over well). Step 3: Demand mutual toleration of each others’ sincere moral opinions (even though you have the moral high ground), and then state that it’s unkind and intolerant to suggest that you’re a bigot or a hater. Repeat Step 3 incessantly until your gay relative shuts up or until there is pie.

Now I’m sure there is an argument to be made (most likely by Ms. Gallagher herself) that these same steps might apply (with obvious content edits) to gay people talking to their relatives about their own lives – i.e. state the point, refute claims of narrow-mindedness against opponents, and then request mutual tolerance and respect in light of differing opinions. But I would argue that mutual tolerance and respect is not the compromise in this situation. It merely maintains the status quo of discrimination and asks us to be accepting of our own oppression. You don’t get to say, “Can’t you just respect that I believe you are inferior and will legislate to the extent I am able to keep you in a legally-inferior position?” and expect me to say, “Oh, sure, that sounds like a fair compromise.”

Mutual toleration and respect require that individuals be on equal footing. If you want mutual toleration and respect, let us get married and then disagree with it. Don’t funnel money and manpower into passing discriminatory laws to strip us of our civil rights and then expect us to be respectful and tolerant of your “moral” stance.

The CA Supreme Court held today that the proponents of Prop 8 have standing to defend the initiative on appeal in the 9th Circuit.

This is a technical ruling on standing, and has no bearing on the substantive arguments for or against same-sex marriage. Predictably, however, ProtectMarriage.com has claimed the ruling as a monumental victory that deals a fatal blow to supporters of marriage equality:

“This ruling is a huge disaster for the homosexual marriage extremists. The Court totally rejected their demands that their lawsuit to invalidate Proposition 8 should win by default with no defense. Their entire strategy relied on finding a biased judge and keeping the voters completely unrepresented. Today that all crumbled before their eyes.”

Let’s get one thing straight (so to speak): The only thing that crumbled before our eyes today was the barrier that prevented the 9th Circuit from deciding this case on the merits. The CA Supreme Court’s decision today only gives the ProtectMarriage people their day in court – a day which they already had and, let’s be honest, squandered. It’s now up to the 9th Circuit to determine whether Prop 8 violates federal constitutional protections.

Speaking of courtroom farce, oral arguments will be heard in early December as to whether or not the Prop 8 trial videos will be released to the public. The Prop 8 supporters have fought tooth and nail to prevent the public from seeing these footage – so you know it must be worth watching. So long as the videos remain suppressed, ProtectMarriage.com can continue to claim that Prop 8 was overturned based on judicial bias in the face of hard evidence against same-sex marriage (e.g. the admission by their own star witness that this nation would be more American the day we allowed marriage equality). That they fight the release of the videos is proof that they don’t want the public to see what the judge saw. Will update on that proceeding as well.

ProtectMarriage completely misses the point. I’m shocked. Or not.

Outside the courtroom, the plaintiffs’ attorneys sharply criticized the notion that redefining marriage to include homosexual relationships would contribute to the deinstitutionalization of marriage. That argument, they said, is like saying that extending the right to vote to women “deinstitutionalized” the voting process.

Nice sound bite, but the analogy fails. Securing women’s right to vote didn’t do a thing to change the meaning and importance of voting. By contrast there is no doubt that re-defining marriage to include homosexual relationships would ipso facto divorce the institution itself from its fundamental, biological foundation. Nice try.

I think that’s kind of the point. Before the Nineteenth Amendment was passed, politicians and pundits argued that extending voting rights to women would de-legitimize the political process, destroy homes and families, lead to double-voting, create crime, injure women, result in military ruin, and generally destroy the world. It didn’t. And neither will same-sex marriage.

Ladies and gentlemen, if I could just call your attention to the final lines of the latest ProtectMarriage.com entry…

In fact, when the video cameras stop rolling and the sensationalism of this trial fades away, it will become clear that plaintiffs have essentially presented a political argument—not a legal claim. Such a case belongs in the public debate, not a courtroom.

Tags: Gregory Herek, prop8, protect marriage, traditional Marriage

Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments are closed.

Raise your hand if you see something glaringly wrong with this?

Let’s break this down:

1) What video cameras? This guy would have you believe there’s some sort of media circus going on in the court room. Seriously? These people went to the SUPREME COURT to keep this thing from being televised. Yes, it’s being recorded for the judge, but those recordings are not being released to the public, and from the court transcripts they already appear to be biting their nails about what’s going to happen to them at the end of the trial. So… “When the video cameras stop rolling”? Really? Can we say, “HYPERBOLE”?

2) What sensationalism? There’s been virtually no media attention to this trial. If I wasn’t a gay law student taking an active interest in the trial, I’d have no reason to know it’s even happening. Network news hasn’t really touched it much. Stewart and Colbert are barely even acknowledging it, if they have at all. So again – what sensationalism would that be, exactly?

3) If the case belongs in the public debate, why have you turned off both pings AND comments?

Obama to Offer Aid for Families in State of the Union Address – NYTimes.com.

Dear President Obama,
If you want to “help families,” could you please get rid of the Gay Tax? I’m really not sure exactly where we’re supposed to come up with that kind of money – and I find it terribly ironic that you expect us to pay more for less.
Thanks,
Disenfranchised Taxpayer

My favorite “Gathering Storm” parody…

Protect Marriage avoids inconvenient truths.

Then Thursday, for the first time (we believe) ever in a court of law, a proponent of a voter initiative was put on the stand to be interrogated under oath about his own political, moral and religious views. Not only was the Prop 8 supporter forced to reveal his political and religious views under penalty of perjury, but he was further forced to defend and substantiate his views so the court can decide whether his views are “improper.”

They make it sound like Plaintiffs plucked a random guy off the street. This was an OFFICIAL PROPONENT of the amendment, and also the executive director of one of the campaign coalition organizations. This was a guy who JOINED as a Defendant Intervener (despite efforts to withdraw under pretense of fear once he realized he was making matters worse by being there)! That makes him a VOLUNTARY PARTY TO THIS CASE. Why shouldn’t he be put on the stand under oath and interrogated as to his actions and motives? Tam voluntarily stepped into the public eye in order to make outrageous claims about the “gay agenda.” He participated in public debates on behalf of the Yes on 8 campaign. And perhaps most importantly, Tam’s beliefs reflect those of a great number of Prop 8 supporters – and that is entirely relevant to this case, because the Plaintiffs need to show that animus was the driving factor. Tam SHOULD be held accountable for his public statements, especially because he not only inserted himself into the campaign, but also inserted himself into the very case in which he is being examined.

Protect Marriage’s summation of today’s testimony. Virtually NO mention of the fiasco that was the impeachment of William Tam, even though his testimony took up the entire second half of the day. Definitely a must-read (his testimony, not PM’s summary). Lawyering at its finest.

Actually, the really hilarious part is that the post is entitled “A Head Shaker of an Afternoon.” Segura testified in the morning. TAM testified in the afternoon. I’ll bet it WAS a real head-shaker.

From yesterday’s expert testimony based on analysis of hate crime statistics: “There is simply no other person in society who endures the likelihood of being harmed as a consequence of their identity than a gay man or lesbian.” I think the transgender community would disagree, but you get the point: If being queer is a “dangerous lifestyle,” it’s only because y’all keep killing us.

FDL News Desk » Prop 8 Trial Livebog Week 2 Day 2 Pt. III 28.

This is mindblowing stuff. I mean, it’s not surprising; we all knew that the Yes on 8 campaign was just a front for the Catholic/LDS churches. But today’s evidence proves it, and that’s why the Yes on 8 people fought tooth and nail to prevent it from being read into the record.

ProtectMarriage.com issues Cease and Desist for Prop 8 Trial Tracker logo depicting family of two mothers with two kids « Prop 8 Trial Tracker.

Every lawyerly communication should include the word “sassy.”

The opposing side’s blog is here. While prop8trialtracker.com and this site have some very deliberate similarities in design, what strikes me most is the difference in content. The Prop 8 folks are basically spinning faulty summaries of the testimony that are meant to convey the notion that the Prop 8 lawyers are knocking it out of the ballpark, shooting down flimsy expert after flimsy expert. They have also turned off comments. The No on 8 folks, on the other hand, are including minimal commentary, but are mostly just trying to get as close as they can to providing a real-time transcript, to let people see the testimony for themselves, with commenting open to engage people in discussion (firedoglake.com has another excellent live trial blog).

Meanwhile, the Yes on 8 folks are trying to impeach the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses by pointing out that they all support same-sex marriage and many contributed to No on 8. Well gosh, I guess that makes their expert research inadmissible. Incidentally, were the Yes on 8 people planning to put up expert witnesses who believe strongly in same-sex marriage, but decided to testify against it, just for argument’s sake?

Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream Renames Chubby Hubby to HubbyHubby.

From the press release:

“At the core of Ben & Jerry’s values, we believe that social justice can and should be something that every human being is entitled to,” said Walt Freese, Chief Executive Officer of Ben & Jerry’s. “From the very beginning of our 30 year history, we have supported equal rights for all people. The legalization of marriage for gay and lesbian couples in Vermont is certainly a step in the right direction and something worth celebrating with peace, love and plenty of ice cream.”

Rob Thomas: The Big Gay Chip on My Shoulder.

A civil union has to do with death. It’s essentially a document that gives you lower taxes and the right to let your faux spouse collect your insurance when you pass away. A marriage is about life. It’s about a commitment. And this argument is about allowing people to have the right to make that commitment, even if it doesn’t make sense to you. Anything else falls under the category of “separate but equal” and we know how that works out.

Obama on DOMA: He IS Keeping A Promise

Daily Kos: Obama on DOMA: He IS Keeping A Promise.

I don’t know how I feel about this whole mess. But before people start condemning Obama, I’d like to point out that when our AG refused to defend Prop 8, we got Kenneth Star instead. I’m thinking of Aesop’s “The Fox and the Hedgehog” right about now.

Washington Blade | Cheney endorses same-sex marriage .

Can somebody please explain to me how “I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish — any kind of arrangement they wish” constitutes support for marriage equality? That sounds an awful lot like the argument for freedom of private contract. Thanks for your… uh… support?

Joe. My. God.: Sen. Jeff Sessions Makes Kids Cry.

Histrionics? A boy is in danger of losing his mother, and Sessions is complaining about histrionics? What is the boy supposed to do to express his anguish – wrestle with an alligator? When you support policies like these, you are supporting the destruction of families – not abstract families that don’t exist except in your hand-wringing about the gay agenda, but real families, with real parents, and real children, and real love – and real pain, caused, in part, by YOU.

Reality gets “Stranger” with arranged-wedding show – Yahoo! News.

Alright, all you traditional marriage folks! Step up, step right up! Who’s next in line to sign up for this one? Technically speaking, FOX shouldn’t be criticized for this show – it should be lauded for bringing back good old traditional values in the form of marriages arranged by the family. ‘Cause really, isn’t that far more traditional than all those newfangled marriages based in mutual love and respect?

Same-sex couples fight for immigration rights – CNN.com.

Forget “family values.” Try VALUING FAMILIES.

N.E.’s identity bolsters gay marriage tolerance – The Boston Globe.

Group Renews Fight for Same-Sex Marriage in California – NYTimes.com.

Opponents of same-sex marriage said a second campaign would be a mistake. “The fact is that the people of California have already spoken,” said Brian S. Brown, the executive director in National Organization for Marriage, in Princeton, N.J. “And they don’t like being told they were wrong the first time.”

Uh, sorry, could you repeat that? I was distracted by Propositions 4, 73, and 85.

White House Memo – With Gay Issues in View, Obama Is Pressed to Engage – NYTimes.com.

How very sad that the pictured couple’s marriage will be forever tainted by the circumstances under which it occurred. How very sad for their children.

Some satisfied, others outraged with verdict for immigrant’s death – CNN.com.

Absolutely appalling. What the hell kind of country do we live in when this sort of circus passes for justice? Has nothing changed in the 21st century? I guess the jury foreman will he know was right when these kids get arrested for their second hate-filled murder, which I am sure is forthcoming. The jury foreman said:

“I believe strongly that some of the people on the jury were racist. I believe strongly that some of the people on the jury had their minds made up maybe before the first day of trial,” said Maclin. “And I believe the four boys that were involved the most are racist. I absolutely do. Derrick Donchak wore a US Border Patrol t-shirt to a Halloween party after Luis died. That is racist. That is beyond in bad taste. That is horrible.”

I think one of the people who commented on my last entry regarding this issue said it best. Elvin Rivera wrote:

If the players roles were reversed and Luis Ramirez was on trial for killing one of the boys you can be sure that the verdict would have been guilty. “Of course he’s guilty. He’s an illegal Mexican immigrant.” How could those “boys” forget that they come from immigrant roots with names like Piekarsky and Donchak?

They probably didn’t have to suffer the taunts and prejudice their grandparents and parents did when young but I’m sure they heard the stories from them. Maybe they came away with the wrong lesson. Maybe they were taught intolerance instead of tolerance. I don’t know. But the results are very obvious. They learned to hate.

It’s time for the US Attorney’s office to step in and arrest those murderers and charge them with violating Ramirez’s civil rights. Regardless of his legal status in this country he had the God given right to live. The US Constitution guarantees it. Not just for us but for everyone.

Today is Sunday and I’m sure many of the citizens of Shenandoah Pa will be in church this morning. I hope some of them pray for the family of Luis Ramirez. I hope all of them pray for forgiveness and mercy for themselves because they’ll need it.

‘Nuff said.

YouTube – Weathering the Storm (Response to NOM Gathering Storm).

Commentary: Miss California, thanks for being honest – CNN.com.

My take:

My problem with her answer was not that she expressed her opinion about what marriage *should* be, but that she displayed an ignorance of the reality faced by same-gender couples. For most of us, the “choice” of same-sex marriage is not available. We don’t live in a country where people get to choose opposite-sex marriage or same-sex marriage; we live in a country where people like Miss California get to make that decision FOR people like me. So to me, it sounded like she was either completely misinformed as to whether same-gender couples can actually marry in America, or was saying, “Hey, you chose to be gay, so you don’t get to be married.” Either way, her answer was far from honest. An opinion is an opinion, but she flat out lied.