Now that I've had time to read and gnaw on Judge Walker's ruling, I can only say that to this non-lawyer, it is a masterful work of art. I may not be a lawyer, but I read a lot of court rulings, and this one transcends most in terms of its construction, its logic, and its thoroughness. No corner was left with dust in it.
Which means, of course, that the crazy is now beginning. Even as the party rolls on in the Castro district and West Hollywood tonight, the wingers have begun to roll out statements of their own -- statements which have only one message for those with ears to hear. "Fear the gays."
It's the same message they used to ram Proposition 8 down the throats of California voters in the first place. Crazy doesn't like to be called crazy, and especially not in the venue they use most to cling to crazy -- the courts. So we have some notable statements from the Proposition 8 proponents.
Maggie Gallagher's disdain for Marriage Equality New York board president Cathy Marino-Thomas was palpable. The feeling, we're guessing, was mutual. The two shared the stage at Hofstra University's “Day of Dialogue," and even outside the confines of a 30-second spot, Gallagher was still trafficking in misinformation. And eye rolls.
We do appreciate the debate over whether our "intolerance" for bigotry is, by definition, hate — of the very same variety we call out and despise daily on this website. That's Gallagher's position: By labeling Prop 8 supporters as advocates of hatred, we're being intolerant ourselves, showing no respect for a difference in viewpoints.
But what Maggie does not, and may never understand is the difference between agreeing to disagree, and actively endorsing discrimination against an entire group of people. For that, we cannot be tolerant. [..]
But here's the soundbite we're holding on to, as Maggie addresses Marino-Thomas: "[Your marriage] may be better, but it's not a marriage. … It's probably better than my marriage to hear you talk about it. I wouldn't talk about my marriage in such glowing terms."
It's so sad that someone who cannot speak well of their own marriage feels it's their right to fight to keep others from having that legal union.
On a related note, it's not a serious move so much as a political statement, but here in California, someone has decided to fight a real threat to the sanctity of marriage: the ability to divorce:
California Secretary of State Debra Bowen today authorized the backer of an initiative that would ban divorce to begin collecting signatures to put the proposed constitutional amendment before voters.
John Marcotte now has until March 22, 2010, to collect 694,354 signatures of registered voters in order to get the measure on the ballot next year. The proposal would change the California Constitution to "eliminate the ability of married couples to get divorced in California."[..]:
ELIMINATES THE LAW ALLOWING MARRIED COUPLES TO DIVORCE. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the ability of married couples to get divorced in California. Preserves the ability of married couples to seek an annulment. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Savings to the state of up to hundreds of millions of dollars annually for support of the court system due to the elimination of divorce proceedings.
While I obviously don't want my rights taken away (not that I'm planning on divorcing my husband, mind you. He's stuck with me.), I do appreciate the sentiment behind it. My gay uncle's marriage does not harm my marriage, threatens no one else's relationship and it's a ludicrous argument to claim it does. However, the ease in which we may end marriages (one-third of all first marriages end within 10 years, according to the CDC) certainly does. If these wingnuts want to hold up marriage as the foundation of society, then put up or shut up.
Horn: Under the kind of new standard, which is really kind of new...
This is kind of new in journalism Mr. Horn, where the gov't pays journalists to promot their ideas.
Why is it that these pundits who are such experts on many issues, feign ignorance when confronted with payola charges? As is just being reported, Gallagher also testified before the Senate Judicial Committee here to further Bush's agenda. It's interesting to note that Bill O'Reilly acted more outraged(view here) over allegations against Daily Kos and MyDD even though they disclosed their affiliations and were never hired to push an adminstration's agenda.
NEW YORK Universal Press Syndicate columnist Maggie Gallagher says The Washington Post retracted a claim about her in a Saturday column by Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt.
"I would not call it a retraction," responded Hiatt, when reached by E&P.
Added Howard Kurtz, the Post writer who broke the story about Gallagher receiving $21,500 from the Department of Health and Human Services to write marriage-themed material, "The only retraction is in Maggie Gallagher's imagination."