Prop 8 Is Not Over. No, No, No, No, No
Stamping their feet like little children, Prop 8 supporters are refusing to believe it’s over. On Top Magazine reports:
After the California Supreme Court unanimously decided to toss out a legal challenge to reinstate Proposition 8, supporters reacted by saying that Proposition 8 remains valid. In remarks to the Christian Post, Austin R. Nimocks, senior counsel for the Christian conservative Alliance Defending Freedom, insisted the decision was just a setback. “Elected officials should enforce the law,” Nimocks said. “Though the current California officials are unwilling to enforce the state constitution, we remain hopeful that one day Californians will elect officials who will.”
This is just getting sad. It reminds me of the whole Terry Schaivo mess in Florida a few years, where the religious right brought lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit, ALL of which were rejected. Get over it. It’s done.
Gay Marriage is a Mirage
Brian Brown over at NOM had his own little rant over the Prop 8 case. Joe.My.God reports:
“The way that activist judges have dealt with Proposition 8 is a travesty of justice and undermines the rule of law and the democratic process itself. The legitimate votes of 7 million Californians, and their fair-minded, reasonable position that marriage should be defined as the union of one man and one woman, have been trampled underfoot by derelict politicians and activist judges. However, this is not the end of the debate. No judge or politician can redefine what God has created. NOM and our allies will work to make sure the people of California, and other states where marriage has been redefined have a voice speaking for true marriage. So-called same-sex ‘marriage’ is a political creation; it doesn’t exist in reality. Eventually it will fall, and we will restore natural marriage in California.”
Well, fuck you. My marriage to Mark is very real, and if not for people like you, would have been real long before we were finally allowed to get married. Political creation my ass.
Why Is That Transexual Lady Mad At Me?
All around jerk and homophobe Randy Thomasson defended calling a transgender man “lady” on a CNN show. Joe.My.God reports:
“At the beginning of the interview, the liberal host calls the woman who is a transsexual activist ‘sir,’ and refers both to her and I as ‘gentlemen.’ But at the end of the interview I say ‘good to talk to you ladies,’ because both the host and my bearded opponent are indeed biological females. Of course, the bearded Masen Davis didn’t like this fact at all and she’s complaining to CNN about me. How tyrannical and anti-free-speech! But the homosexual, bisexual, transsexual activists and their supporters can’t be bothered with facts, can they? Instead, they engage in ad hominem arguments and personal attacks.“
Well, I guess you’d know about ad hominem attacks, wouldn’t you? Joe has some other great examples of Thomasson’s wacky statements at the link above.
It’s Just Loike Incest, Mate
In Australia, Liberal lawmaker Nick Goiran trotted out his own slippery slope argument against marriage equality. Gay Star News reports:
‘The intricacies that arise when Ethan and Stephanie want to marry are innumerable,’ Goiran said, refering to a fictional half-brother and half-sister who wanted to marry. ‘Some intricacies are measurable however the genetic combinations are not measurable. When this couple decide to have children they are, in essence, playing Russian roulette with recessive traits and birth defects. The amount of time they will spend in hospital with their sick child is measurable. The immeasurable complications come with the results and family dynamics of a brother and sister marrying and of course, the question has to be asked: what would happen if the relationship were to end in divorce?’
Blah blah blah gay marriage bad.
What Happens if An Anti Marriage Equality Map Meets a Pro Marriage Equality One?
And finally, a special anti-marriage equality map from the Alliance Defending Freedom. Note that they still list California as one of the “states with constitutional amendments, voted on by the people, protecting marriage as one man/one woman.” How do you debate an opponent who won’t eve accept basic facts? Thanks to Joe.My.God for this one.