(Note: I decided that between now and 11/2, I’m going to write once a day about the issues that are at stake locally and nationally. This is my first entry.)
So I was in LA this week on business. I spent much of my time in traffic to and from work, listening to ultra conservative AM talk radio. Much to my chagrin, when I got home I found the paper version of this in my mail box. Yay.
Curious I decided to watch the video that shows young, hip, diverse men and women explaining why they are voting Yes on Oregon State Proposition 36. Here is an overview of the video with the most interesting quotes I found (there are a LOT of them):
Open with cool rock music playing and a graphic design that looks frighteningly similar to the old Napster.com layout
“Is No really the way to show that we care?”
“A vote of No is not going to show to people that we care”
Of course not. Instead, let’s show all those gays we care by saying they can’t have what they so desperately want. Since we really care about them, maybe we should even try to force them to be straight.
“It spanned across 5,000 years of human history… you have to go back to Genesis…”
“Marriage is the most incredible thing that God ever created — it’s awesome”
Yes, and everyone knows that God should totally dictate political policy. Thomas Jefferson clearly doesn’t know what he’s talking about. It’s not like he helped create the longest running democracy in the world.
“Gay marriages will be put on the same platform as heterosexual marriages and taught as equal to our children”
Gasp! You mean we would have to teach tolerance and equal rights to your… children???
“… 3 years old, she’s going to be asked to make decisions, and understand concepts, and understand things that are probably beyond her… we want every opportunity to point her in the right direction”
Honestly though — since when did “gay marriage” turn in to “let’s teach three year olds what anal sex is”? This issue is about gay marriage, not about sex education laws. Feel free to propose a law that restricts that — I’d probably even vote for it (sex ed was a waste of time). I can just see it now:
3 year old girl: “Daddy, why do Tom and Rick kiss on the mouth?”
Girl’s father: “Well, honey, you see, Tom likes to put his erect penis in to Rick’s anus and rub it back and forth vigorously. Now that gay marriage is legal, I am forced to propose this lifestyle an alternative option for you, dear. And since sexuality is nurture and not nature, you obviously will now become a homosexual”
“Homosexuals are subject to the exact same restrictions as heterosexuals”
Yes, but are heterosexuals subject to the exact same restrictions as homosexuals? Think about that one, Sherlock.
“They can do whatever they want — they have equal rights. Don’t let them tell you they don’t have equal rights”
Wow. I didn’t know that. The pamphlet I got that pointed me to this awesome website actually says: “There are legal ways gay and lesbian couples can get benefits married couples have. They’re available through a will, medical power of attorney, insurance policies, etc. Even married people have to jump through hoops to get benefits.” Exactly! That pesky marriage hoop. I’m sure gays would much rather get power of attorney when their partner just got run over by a semi-truck and a doctor needs a medical decision made immediately.
Fade out from rock music in to slow acoustic guitar, as some dillweed explains that this is not a civil rights issue
“Sexual preference is not something that you’re born with”
“The idea of the gay gene has been totally rejected by the public. So you can’t be born gay. This isn’t a civil rights issue like the color of your skin.”
Since when? Last I heard the issue was not medically decided either way. But I do know that all my friends that are gay never woke up one day and swore off the opposite sex. Rather, it was a feeling they had in them all their life and finally got the courage to be open with it. I guess they are liars.
Pan to black woman, explaining that her parents are appalled this is called a civil rights issue
“He grew up at a time when there was a lot of segregation… when they hear that this is being used as a civil rights issue… you can’t compare the two”
I really liked the touch of not only using a black person, but a black woman to contrast the difference between being sexuality and skin color. I must admit, very smooth.
“Scripture can become illegal and outlawed”
“The next thing that is going to happen is that portions of the bible will be declared as hate literature”
Yes. Fortunately we can still read Catcher in the Rye to our three year olds. This wouldn’t be the first time that historic documents were banned by those crazy liberals. Oh wait, yes it would.
“It’s going to affect how we preach the bible and whether or not if I have to marry two homosexuals and maybe I could go to jail someday if I don’t”
Well, if you’re a state officer, then yes you’d have to marry them. But…
“If Measure 36 doesn’t pass and your pastor refuses to marry a gay or lesbian couple, he could be setting himself up for a major lawsuit”
Oh!? A pastor??? Yeah, you’d totally get arrested or sued for that. Remember: in the US we don’t respect your freedom to practice religion how you want.
“The opposition knows that if they can win in Oregon, it’s likely they can win in other states”
Actually, on a serious note: this is true. Due to some wacky commerce supreme court decision like ten thousand years ago. Basically, it is quite possible that once one state allows it, others will have to recognize it.
“The opposition has recruited young adults to drop out of college and spend their time and energy to get people registered to vote”
BLAST those gays for forcing adults to drop out of college and throw away their lives for the pursuit of an obvious abomination. If only college students were adults that could make up their own minds…
“We cannot let 2% of the population redefine marriage”
Exactly. And it’s a good thing we didn’t let 15% of the population redefine what a whole person was a few years back, right?
Fade in to American flag with male vocals in the background proclaiming “I can believe”, and then a whole section on how we can all make a difference
I actually want to talk about two things:
- Activist Judges
- Definition of Marriage
Activist Judges
The phrase “activist judges” really pisses me off. Somehow it became a Republican talking point and has spread like wildfire to the point where people actually think we live in a Democracy where the people’s voice matters.
Hello? McFly? We live in a representative democracy, and a particularly good one at that. It is designed with a very complex and strict set of checks and balances between three branches of government.
To say that there are “activist judges” who would rather do politics than listen to the voice of the people is just stupid. The whole point of a judge, in the perspective of our checks and balances, is to overturn laws when they deem them to be unconstitutional or otherwise harmful for American citizens.
Fortunately for us, Mr Jefferson and his pals once again saved us from these evil activist judges by constructing a system in which our president can choose who the judges are (and our next President most certainly will!), and our elected congress can enact constitutional amendments that will tie the hands of those pesky judges.
Enough said. If you believe in activist judges, you need to take a civics class. Now, about activist mayors (Gavin Newsom, for instance)… that’s another story.
On to point number 2:
Definition of Marriage
The other big claim going on with this whole issue is that gays and liberals are trying to redefine marriage. Well first of all, any language expert will tell you that languages, including the almighty English language, evolve over time. But more to the point, words have multiple definitions. Mr Webster tells me that…
- …
- The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
- The state of being married; wedlock.
- A common-law marriage.
- A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
- A wedding.
- A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose).
- Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.
Now isn’t that interesting. The first thing that springs to mind is that link I placed earlier in this post about the separation of church and state. Specifically, the “Lemon Test” requires that:
a law involving religion is constitutional if it has a secular (non-religious) purpose, is neutral toward religion (neither for or against it), and does not result in “excessive entanglements” between government and religion.
Specifically, laws must not be put in place that are neither for nor against a particular religion over another. Since there are clearly some religions that allow gay marriage, we already are restricting certain religions from practicing their beliefs. On top of that, I think it is pretty clear there is now “excessive entanglements” around this issue.
So clearly marriage, in terms of the state definition of it, has nothing to do with Adam and Eve right? Because if it did, that wouldn’t be very “neutral”, right? If that were the case, some judge might try to rule as unconstitutional or something silly like that.
OK, enough. For those of you who feel that gay marriage detracts from “the real thing” (a quote I read recently by some ultra conservatives in response to Mr. Bush’s claim that civil unions might be OK), I suggest you learn to not let the private actions of others bother you so much. I mean, this is a free country after all, and people are going to do things that annoy you. So you better learn now to live with it, or, as many conservatives love to shout out: Love it out leave it.
0 Comments on “Activist Judges and Gay Marriage”
Leave a Comment