Tuesday's decision is a milestone for the struggle for LGBT equality, and I hope the ruling has a wider policy impact. Predictably, anti-LGBT voices from the right are less than thrilled.
- In a February 8th blog post at the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) website, executive director Brian S. Brown claimed that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judges " decreed themselves to be the supreme overlords of the people." Unhappy that the judges had allegedly invalidated millions of Californians' vote, Brown framed the ruling as an affront to the American founders. (See www[dot]nomblog[dot]com/19061/)
"Not only must our founding fathers be rolling over in their graves with the preposterous notion that marriage is unconstitutional, but the ruling is an affront to the millions of Americans—the vast majority of the nation—who recognize that man does not have the right to redefine marriage. After all, how can federal judges redefine something that man didn't create?"- In a February 7th statement at the Concerned Women for America website, CEO Penny Nance called the decision "a new low" for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, accusing it of disregarding the Constitution and the will of the voters. (See www[dot]cwfa[dot]org/content.asp?id=20901)
"Our experiences have shown us, as science proves, that the best environment for children to develop as productive members of our society is in a home where there is a mother and a father who love them and each other unconditionally. Yet with a stroke of the pen these three judges have undermined the foundations of the family and liberty."- In a February 7th press release, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins called the decision "disappointing" and an act of "judicial tyranny." Perkins painted the decision as a "Hollywood-funded lawsuit, which seeks to impose San Francisco values on the entire country." (See www[dot]frc[dot]org/newsroom/family-research-council-criticizes-ninth-circuit-ruling-to-overthrow-definition-of-marriage)
- In a statement at his website, GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum lambasted the decision as one of many "radical activist rulings by this rogue circuit." He accused the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of ignoring the will of the people, adding that the country cannot have "50 different definitions of marriage." (Hat tip to the Advocate. See www[dot]ricksantorum[dot]com/pressrelease/santorum-responds-proposition-8-ruling)
For additional commentary, visit the following links.
Media Matters: O'Reilly: Ruling Striking Down Prop 8 Is "Judicial Activism"
Freak Out Nation: Proposition 8 Ruled as Unconstitutional, NOM Has a Hissy Fit
Huffington Post: Proposition 8 Ruling Prompts Outpouring of Political Reaction
My preference (which would never happen) is that the courts decide: "Shit, we've had it wrong from the beginning: The government should keep out of the marriage business. People should form private contracts with each other in their living arrangements and ask for Government protection of the contract if they wish. Religions can go on calling certain type of relationships what ever they want."
ReplyDeleteBut, instead, "marriage" will be redefined by this government and if history changes, they will change it back. Meanwhile, perhaps next the government can decide what a "friend" is. Or maybe the government can decide what "priest" means and Catholics will be forced to have female priests. Or they could just redefine "nude" so that people can be more comfortable in the summer.
"Not only must our founding fathers be rolling over in their graves with the preposterous notion that marriage is unconstitutional, but the ruling is an affront to the millions of Americans—the vast majority of the nation—who recognize that man does not have the right to redefine marriage. After all, how can federal judges redefine something that man didn't create?"
ReplyDeleteUmm....nobody's asking to "redifine" marriage. They're asking for equality in marriage. That's first and foremost. The term marriage is used in a variety of ways that don't even include intimate relationships. Is that redefining it? Not in the least. Secondly, these judges do not have the preposterous notion that marriage is unconstitutional. They have the preposterous notion that they shouldn't be telling individuals who they may and may not marry. Preposterous indeed!
So Republicans are moving towards a candidate who calls the ninth a "rogue circuit." Interesting. Also interesting is the propensity for labeling those who defend gay marriage as Hollywood types.
ReplyDeleteHere's another one for you: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700222998/LDS-Church-other-religious-groups-respond-to-Prop-8-ruling.html?s_cid=rss-30
Evidently the LDS Church has always believed that marriage is between "one man and one woman." ;)
Nom is crazy insane. And frankly, "science" proves quite the opposite. There is no difference in the success of children when controlled for the variable of the sex of the parents. What is of important is loving and nurturing environments period.
ReplyDeleteMan didn't create marriage? These people aren't exactly history buffs, are they?
ReplyDeleteThis is an excellent ruling, a step not only in the right direction but one that I believe reflects changing attitudes and will have lasting impact. These right wing folks are a dying breed. Praise Jeebus.
It's like watching tantruming toddlers. I'm both amused and disgusted.
ReplyDeleteSabio -- Thought-provoking! It could certainly prevent a lot of this legal wrangling and homophobic activism.
ReplyDeleteD'Ma -- Yeah, they completely misunderstood the situation. I fail to see how granting equal rights to LGBT people will redefine marriage for straights or be an "affront" to anything.
Donna -- Thanks for the article. The LDS claim that they've "always" had that view is laughable to anyone who took a high school history class.
Sherry -- Amen to that. LGBT equality advocates have research and justice on their side. What does NOM have?
Cognitive Dissenter -- Progress is worth celebrating! I too got a kick out of the assumption that humans didn't create marriage. Of course they did. Marriage is a social construct with different meanings across eras and cultures.
Buffy -- Indeed. "Amused and disgusted" is how I usually feel when I'm gathering information for these blog posts.