Daily Archives: August 4, 2010

You DON’T get to vote on my rights

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no [legitimate] interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

— Federal Judge Vaughn Walker in Perry vs. Schwarzenegger

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, [and] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

— The U.S. Declaration of Independence

Stuart Gaffney, from left, his husband John Lewis, ...

Spencer Jones, left, kisses his husband Tyler ...

Associated Press photos

San Franciscans Spencer Jones and Tyler Barrick, who were married when California honored same-sex marriage in 2008 and who are featured prominently in the worthwhile documentary “8: The Mormon Proposition,” celebrate a federal judge’s decision today that November 2008’s anti-same-sex-marriage Proposition 8 is invalid because it violates the protections afforded to Californians by the U.S. Constitution. I expect the U.S. Supreme Court to ultimately uphold the ruling.

I should have been a fucking lawyer.

When I predicted several hours before he did so that federal Judge Vaughn Walker would rule that Proposition H8 is unconstitutional — which he did, of course — I noted the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in Lawrence vs. Texas, the case that found that no state has a legitimate reason to meddle in what consenting adults do sexually in private, that religious sexual prohibitions aren’t enough to make a sex act illegal if the state cannot demonstrate that the state has an interest (such as a public-safety interest) in making that act illegal. 

In his ruling invalidating Prop H8, Walker wisely and correctly notes, on page 8, that “The state does not have an interest in enforcing private moral or religious beliefs without an accompanying secular purpose. See Lawrence v Texas…”

Yup.

Again, I don’t wish to compare same-sex marriage and sodomy (the subject of Lawrence vs. Texas), but again: What Judge Walker said!

The pro-Prop H8 fascists have actually claimed that same-sex couples getting married actually violates their (the fascists’) religious freedom because they find same-sex marriage to be offensive to their religious beliefs and sensibilities.

This line of “argument” is down-the-rabbit-hole-level insanity.

To live in a free nation is to be offended sometimes. If you can’t fucking handle that, then you need to get the fuck out of the fucking nation. (I hear that the Taliban is recruiting, and they’re quite homophobic.)

But seriously, I find Mormon motherfuckers, “tea-party” dipshits and other “Christo”fascists to be incredibly offensive. I find them to represent quite the opposite of what Jesus Christ and the founding fathers stood for. Thus, in all seriousness, I find them to be anti-Christian and anti-American.

However, because their very existence offends me — and my sense of religious and civic propriety — does that mean that I have the right to violate their constitutional rights in the name of preserving or defending my own rights or my personal cognitive comfort or my peace of mind?

Fuck no.

Then there is the “argument” that whatever a majority of the voters decides never, ever should be overturned, that that majority vote is sacrosanct.

OK, what if we Californians took a vote, and a solid majority of us decided to drive every last Mormon motherfucker out of the state of California? Would that be constitutionally permissible?

Um, yeah.

Only you know what? Such a ballot measure wouldn’t even fucking make it to the ballot. It would be stricken down as blatantly unconstitutional before a single voter could weigh in on it.

Yet my equal human and civil rights were put up for a vote in November 2008, and that is some fucked-up shit. It’s why they call being non-heterosexual “the new black”: because even black people, who should know how wrong oppression is, shit and piss upon us non-heterosexuals.

Then there is perhaps the lamest argument against same-sex marriage that I’ve heard: that same-sex couples can’t produce children, and procreation is in the state’s interest.

Oh, puhfuckinglease. Procreation is in the Mormon cult’s best interests, because the Mormon cult wants to take over the entire fucking world, and the Catholicks are big on procreation, too, because they also want to take over the world, even though to prohibit birth control is incredibly irresponsible and cruel, especially in the Third-World nations where there is starvation and disease and overpopulation, but the United States of America is not underpopulated (indeed, in Arizona they’re trying to drive all of the brown-skinned people out) and Homo sapiens is, um, the last time that I checked, not on the endangered species list (the omnipresent risk of nuclear annihilation aside, of course…).

And let’s carry the procreation “argument” out: So what if two old people, say a widow and a widower in their 70s, want to marry? We don’t let them because the only valid purpose of marriage is procreation? What about heterosexual couples of reproductive age who aren’t able to have children for medical reasons? Must we give fertility tests before we allow heterosexual couples to marry, since procreation is the only valid reason for marriage?

What about fertile heterosexual couples that never have a child? Should we annul their marriages in, say, a year or two if the woman doesn’t get knocked up? What if she manages to get knocked up but just can’t carry a baby to term, but keeps miscarrying? How many chances should we give her?

Um, yeah, one by one, all of the “Christo”fascists’ and other assorted wingnuts’ “arguments” against same-sex marriage all come down to their own backasswards, bigoted religious or personal beliefs.

The pro-Prop H8 wingnuts lost their case before Walker because they have no fucking case.

The wingnuts no doubt will crow that because Walker himself is gay, he handed down a personally biased ruling.

However, when the case goes to the U.S. Supreme Court, the court will be required to look at U.S. Supreme Court precedent, and Lawrence vs. Texas is precedent — fairly recent precedent — that isn’t friendly to keeping same-sex couples from marrying.

I put the chances of the U.S. Supreme Court agreeing with Walker that to prohibit same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution at about two in three.

The battle for same-sex marriage is pretty much all over except for the wingnuts’ crying.

It’s too bad that the Mormon cult and its allies spent more than $40 million pushing Prop H8 down Californians’ throats. Probably the best anti-Prop H8 sign that I’ve seen reads: “Jesus said: ‘Feed the poor.’ They said: ‘Sorry, Jesus, we spent $40 million on hate and fear!'”

I suggest that the members of the Mormon cult and the other “Christo”fascists, instead of trying to make their miserable, hypocritical, self-righteous selves feel better and superior by shitting and pissing upon others, actually fucking read what Jesus Christ actually fucking taught. And then fucking follow it. And then tell the rest of us what great fucking Christians they are.

God bless America, land of the free.

Amen.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Drum roll: My Prop H8 predictions

Correction: Judge Vaughn Walker was appointed by George H.W. Bush, not by George W. Bush. (The Los Angeles Times had reported just “George Bush.”) Also, I should note that Walker is openly gay, which the wingnuts should have a field day with. 

So later today, U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker is to decide whether or not California’s Proposition 8 — which in November 2008 reversed the California Supreme Court’s May 2008 ruling that same-sex marriage must be allowed under the California Constitution — violates the United States Constitution.

My prediction is that Walker will rule that Prop H8 indeed violates the U.S. Constitution.

One of the lawyers who argued before Vaughn that Prop 8 violates the U.S. Constitution was former Solicitor General Ted Olson, a conservative who fought for George W. Bush in Bush vs. Gore, the God-awful 2000 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that crowned George W. Bush “president” even though he had lost the popular vote and lost the state of Florida to his Democratic opponent Al Gore.

And Walker was appointed by George W. Bush.

And lest you think that the California Supreme Court is a bunch of swingin’, dope-smokin’ libbies — I mean, we are talking about California, after all — six of the seven California Supreme Court justices were appointed by Repugnican governors and only one of them by a Democratic governor, and in May 2008 the court voted 4-3 that under the state’s constitution, same-sex marriage must be allowed.

So along came Prop 8, funded mostly by the Mormon cult and mostly from Utah, which in November 2008 changed the California Constitution to add the same-sex marriage prohibition to it.

However, no state may enact a law, even a constitutional revision, that violates the U.S. Constitution. (A civics lesson that the fucktards in Arizona don’t get yet, but will.)

However Vaughn decides, his ruling is expected to be appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the U.S. Supreme Court.

I am not familiar with the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, but my prediction is that the circuit court will uphold Vaughn’s ruling that finds that Prop 8 does indeed violate the U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. Supreme Court, however, is a lot less predictable.

Most people would assume that of course the Supremes would quash same-sex marriage, but it was in 2003 (in Lawrence vs. Texas) that the U.S. Supreme Court, by a 6-3 vote, struck down sodomy laws — that is, the nation’s highest court prohibited any state from making consensual sexual acts between adults in privacy illegal, ruling that such restrictions are unconstitutional — when it had been only in 1986, in Bowers vs. Hardwick, that the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled, 5-4, that sodomy laws (apparently especially those targeting non-heterosexuals) were not unconstitutional. (In Lawrence, the court concluded that “Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today.”)

I certainly do not intend to equate same-sex marriage with sodomy, like the wingnuts’ signage does, but I mean to point out that the U.S. Supreme Court does reverse itself and that it can be unpredictable — and that even conservative jurists sometimes do the right thing.

I give it a little bit more than a 50-percent chance that when it goes to the current U.S. Supreme Court (by which time we will have Justice Elena Kagan on board, for better or for worse), the court will rule that to prohibit same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution.

If the current U.S. Supreme Court does not rule that way, I give it less time than it took between Bowers and Lawrence for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule again, this time in favor of same-sex marriage.

Same-sex marriage rights in all 50 states is just a matter of time.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized