This Gay Marriage business


“The people already voted on this issue. They voted to restrict the right to enter into a marriage contract to anyone but heterosexuals.! These activist judges have NO BUSINESS sticking their noses in and subverting the will of the people”


“There are no rights whatsoever that are being denied to Homosexuals at all. Any gay man can marry any woman he wants. He’s not being restricted from marrying anyone as long as that someone is a woman.”


“If these people are allowed to marry and change the foundations of marriage as it has been known for thousands of years, everyones marriage is in danger.”

 Ok boys and girls, lets take each delusion one at a time.

The people did indeed vote on this issue in 2000. Proposition 22, restricting marriage to between one man and one women passed by 61.4% of the vote (wikipedia

Only one little problem with that proposition.


You can indeed pass any law you can get a majority to vote on in a ballot initiative. That law, however, must pass the State Supreme Court’s review. The court’s role is to determine if a law can pass constitutional muster.  Say you want to ban redheads from walking the street after 10pm. If you can Pay for enough signatures to get it on the next ballot, and if it wins (and it wouldnt surprise me if given enough spin, it might), then it can still go before the Supreme Court to determine if the damn thing doesn’t violate the state constitiution. If it is found to do so by these duly elected judges, then the law is nullified. This protects us from mob rule, a.k.a. the tyranny of the majority. Rights are for everyone. Not merely for some. Or NOT for some because someone’s silly religion says “boo” on them. These are the checks and balances that the Fascist republicans hate.  I quote the majority ruling: “equal respect and dignity” of marriage is a “basic civil right” that cannot be withheld from same-sex couples, that sexual orientation is a protected class like race and gender, and that any classification or discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the California State Constitution.

Try explaining the role of judicial oversight to wingnuts. It’s like trying to explain Mozart to a tree.

Argument #2 is a favorite of  your cultural crusader, that deliverer of your daily dose of radio talk show delusion, Michael Medved. An asshole of the worst sort. It posits that gay men (Medved does not ever mention women when referring to homosexuality) are free to marry anyone as long as it’s a woman. This is the most mean hearted,  obtuse, extremely specious argument of all. So I should forsake the man I truly love, marry a woman, make her and me miserable in a loveless marriage for…what? Convention? Tradition? Maybe such delusion works for  Mister Medved, but judging from hisr pinched, wretched face and dessperate demeanor, I’m doubting it. If ever I heard a more obviously miserable closet case, then I dont know who. He makes Larry Craig seem normal. The tyrannical “moral majority” have no right or authority to take MY rights away from Me because my life offends their dumbass religious sensibilities.

Argument # 3 is the most insane of all. Not one of these morons can ever tell you WHY gay marriage will destroy and dissolve society and marriage. If you’re going to try to take away MY RIGHTS…MY CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHTS, GODDAMNIT, THEN I WANT A BETTER REASON THAN “JUST BECAUSE”

Fools! Backward, regressed assholes. 


6 responses to “This Gay Marriage business

  1. Love it, especially the Mozart bit. LOL

  2. The ban must fail. The ban must fail.

  3. I cant believe they are coming up with such outrageous reasons buddy. Its still shocks me the amount of bile that people come out with. On a lighter note I have caught my trees humming to the magic flute! 😉

  4. Geh. Argument #3 is also *wrong*.

    Check the book “Same-Sex Marriage in Pre-Modern Europe”.

    Marriage didn’t become a Catholic sacrament until the 13th or 14th Century; before then, it was just a contract – entered into by people of the same gender all the time, to secure property rights after death. Sisters, brothers, *monks* – then it became politically expedient for the Vatican to have a say in who inherited what.

    Blam! instant sacrament.

    Dolts. All of them.

    The most cogent argument against same-sex marriage has been from a Federal lawyer complaining about the loss in tax revenue; if suddenly all these high-income single men can file JOINT returns…

  5. they have started up with a new argument, ” what about the kids?” so I tell them to visit the COLAGE website. Children of gays and lesbians everywhere. That way they can’t create a false argument about kids being exposed to gays and lesbians

  6. Brilliantly written. When the Canadian Government passed legislation to include homosexuals in the definition of marriage, those radicals in the States said that it was the next step to Soddom and Gamorah (Or however you spell it) and in truth our economy has never been better and once it was passed there was little to no fuss, at all.
    It seemed once the Government said it was OK, well, it was OK. Sure we still have some people out there who think it’s outrageous and a step in the wrong direction but mostly those people are mocked and ridiculed.
    Great writing.
    Great reading.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s