First Maggie Gallagher, now Debra Saunders: Another shocking display of ignorance in the San Francisco Chronicle

August 6, 2010 at 10:43 am 82 comments

(The San Francisco Chronicle is on a roll, following Judge Walker’s historic ruling striking down Prop 8. On Thursday, they went full FOX News, publishing Maggie Gallagher’s Red Dawn op-ed warning of a “Soviet-style” government takeover of marriage. Not to be outdone, Debra Saunders also published a column in the Chron on Thursday revealing her failure to understand basic civics, as Brian Devine demonstrates below. Of course, that’s not very surprising coming from Gallagher and Saunders. What is surprising is why the Chronicle wastes so much ink on such ignorance. Just another “fair and balanced” #FAIL. — Eden James)

Plaque of Marbury v. Madison at SCOTUS Building

Plaque of Marbury v. Madison at U.S. Supreme Court (h/t Steve in the comments)

By Brian Devine

The San Francisco Chronicle’s conservative commentator, Debra J. Saunders, published a column about Judge Walker’s decision overturning Prop 8. Her article is a shocking display of a lack of understanding of the United States Constitution and the role of the independent Judicial branch in our system of government:

So one judge overturned a measure approved by 52 percent of California voters in 2008 and upheld by the California Supreme Court in a 6-1 ruling.

Some Californians will see this decision as the work of an elitist gay judge imposing his preordained political views on voters.

And then she goes on to describe why she’s one of those “Some Californians.”

Debra Saunders must have been absent on the day her Civics class taught the most important case ever decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, so let’s take a walk back in time.  In 1803, the Supreme Court decided Marbury v. Madison.  This case articulated the Judiciary’s power of “judicial review,” the power to decide the constitutionality of the actions of the other two branches of government (a law passed by the Legislative branch or an action by the Executive branch.) Ever since then, every citizen’s rights have been protected by the Court’s power of judicial review.  The reason judicial review exists is to protect the rights of unpopular minorities against what Alexis de Tocqueville described as the “tyranny of the majority.”  In our system of government, the majority does not get to take away rights that are protected by the Constitution from a minority group, no matter how unpopular that group is.

Using the power of judicial review, our Courts have decided several controversial issues and have forced the majority to accept ideas with which it vehemently disagrees.  Ideas like school integration.  In Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled that laws that created segregated schools violated the Equal Protection rights of racial minorities.  Like Proposition 8, those laws were passed with a majority of people supporting them.  And like Proposition 8, those laws were unconstitutional because they violated the rights of the minority.

Another idea popular among the majority was prohibiting inter-racial marriage.  In the 1950’s and 1960s, most people believed that non-white people should be prohibited from marrying white people.  Several states (including California) passed laws making interracial marriages illegal.  These laws were very popular and passed with a majority of the people’s representatives.  They were based on many of the same arguments on which Proposition 8 is based (fear of the slippery slope: absurd arguments like “if black people can marry white people, how long before people can marry dogs?”)  But the laws were unconstitutional because they violated the rights of the minority.  And in Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional all laws that prohibited inter-racial marriage.

Our history is rich with cases where the Courts have overturned the will of the majority and protected the rights of the minority.  In Debra Saunders’ ideal world, however, these cases would not exist. In Debra Saunders’ world, Brown v. Board of Education would have been decided the other way, leaving the dreadful Plessy v. Ferguson decision to be the law of the land and permitting racial segregation.  In Debra Saunders’ world, Loving v. Virginia would have been decided the other way, and states would be free to prohibit inter-racial marriages.

Is this really the world in which Debra Saunders wants to live?  As a straight, white, and relatively affluent person, it’s easy for Debra Saunders to say that she doesn’t need the Courts to protect her rights.  But that’s exactly the point, isn’t it?  The Courts are there to protect the rights of those who are least liked by society, not to blindly enforce the will of the majority.

Entry filed under: Trial analysis. Tags: , .

VIDEOS/PHOTOS: AFER “heroes” Olson, Boies, Griffin, plaintiffs celebrate in West Hollywood on Decision Day David Boies tears up at speech discussing Prop 8 decision last night (video coming…)

82 Comments Add your own

  • 1. ĶĭŗîļĺęΧҲΪ  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:45 am

    Well, I say let them show how bigoted and stupid they are! It will be beneficial for us!

    Reply
    • 2. Dave in ME  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:50 am

      Yes, I agree. We had a loudmouth who spew lunacy about teh gays on a regular basis, but unfortunately, the people running Yes on 1 were wise enough to ship him to Africa during the campaign. But yeah, this lunacy really helps us with the fence-sitters who want rights for us but don’t like the use of the word “marriage.” I read a few letters in the local paper from people who wanted to distance themselves from the hard-line bigots. I hope the same happens here.

      Dave

      Reply
  • 3. Straight Ally #3008  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:48 am

    Some Californians will see this decision as the work of an elitist gay judge imposing his preordained political views on vote.

    And we know those elitist gays are the worst kind!

    (Where’s Truman Capote when you need him?)

    Reply
    • 4. AndrewPDX  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:07 am

      Lol… How about Oscar Wilde?

      Love,
      Andrew

      Reply
      • 5. fiona64  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:12 am

        The only person who ever said Oscar Wilde was gay was the Marquess of Queensbury (yes,that Marquess of Queensbury), who objected to Wilde’s friendship with his son.

        I adore Oscar Wilde, and find his life absolutely fascinating … but this is one of those “oft repeated without proof” things. I couldn’t care less one way or the other, myself.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 6. AndrewPDX  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:19 am

        Oops! Thanks for correcting me, Fiona!

        Love,
        Andrew

        Reply
      • 7. Sagesse  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:29 am

        @ Fiona,

        But he still went to jail for it.

        Reply
      • 8. Steve  |  August 6, 2010 at 12:05 pm

        His niece Dorothy “Dolly” Wilde was definitely gay though.

        Reply
      • 9. nightshayde  |  August 6, 2010 at 12:39 pm

        *waves hands slightly above head*

        Not that there’s anything wrong with that…

        (sorry – couldn’t resist)

        Reply
  • 10. Steve  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:51 am

    Also, the California Supreme Court ruling upheld Prop 8, because it rejected a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT legal claim than the one in the Perry case.

    Reply
  • 11. Ann S.  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:51 am

    As a subscriber to the SF Chronicle, may I say that Debra Saunders is a constant source of poorly reasoned, poorly written and overly strident nonsense. I continue to subscribe in spite of her, but I do wish they’d let her go.

    To add insult to injury, this morning they printed some blather from Brian S. Brown (bless his heart).

    Reply
    • 12. rf  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:54 am

      She sounds like a left-coast Rick Santorum, who the philly inquirer inexplicably continues to publish. although she seems more well reasoned than he, but so is my cat.

      Reply
    • 13. Paul in Minneapolis  |  August 6, 2010 at 12:27 pm

      Poorly reasoned? Poorly written? Overly strident?

      Let me guess — she also employs the generous use of smoke and mirrors, innuendo and omission. And her sky falls frequently.

      Sounds like the Katherine Kersten of California!

      Reply
      • 14. Ann S.  |  August 6, 2010 at 12:30 pm

        Paul, I don’t know about Katherine Kersten, but you’re right on all other counts.

        Reply
      • 15. Paul in Minneapolis  |  August 6, 2010 at 12:47 pm

        Ann, if you say I’m right, then Kersten and Saunders are two peas in a pod.

        Kersten is a conservative columnist (not to be confused with a journalist) whose work is published more or less weekly in the Minneapolis Star Tribune. She frequently wails … er, writes about the horrors of same-sex marriage.

        She rarely cites sources, and those she does cite are almost always right-wing organizations. She conveniently omits pertinent facts, and writes a lot of “shoulds,” “coulds” and “mights,” as she paints picutres of doom and gloom about conservative causes du jour.

        Kersten’s work has been used in junior high school English classes where students learn how to spot logical fallacies (no joke). She has provided me, and countless others, endless hours of entertainment — first you get some good laughs reading her columns, then you start destroying all of her “arguments” in online comments.

        I can think of one nice thing to say about Katherine Kersten. While she herself has claimed many times to have the hide of a rhino (and I’d agree; she’s pretty abrasive), she did ditch her brillo-pad hairdo for something much more modern and stylish.

        If you have a strong stomach and want to sample some of her dribble, she’s pretty easy to find at http://www.startribune.com. Most of her work is in the “Commentary” section of the “Opinion” menu. You can also google her. And there’s a pretty good online pic of her as Miss Gultch!

        Reply
      • 16. Ann S.  |  August 6, 2010 at 1:09 pm

        Interesting. I wonder why so many papers feel they must employ these wingnuts?

        Reply
      • 17. nightshayde  |  August 6, 2010 at 1:12 pm

        People can’t complain (as easily) about your paper being a load of left-wing liberal hooey if you regularly publish the writings of a right-wing wacko.

        See?! We’re balanced — we’re showing both sides!!!

        Reply
      • 18. Ann S.  |  August 6, 2010 at 1:15 pm

        @Nightshayde — yeah, that’s what I’ve always figured the justification was. She’s not even worth reading to “get the other side” of something, because — she just makes no sense.

        Reply
      • 19. Paul in Minneapolis  |  August 6, 2010 at 1:17 pm

        Because they’re trying to fight the accusation that they have a liberal slant; the token conservative provides “balance” (kind of the liberal version of the Faux News philosophy, I guess).

        Of course it backfires (“can’t this paper find a more intelligent conservative?”). Many people have wondered if Kersten is merely a liberal plant who has set out to make conservatives look bad. (They’re half right; she does indeed make conservatives look bad!)

        Reply
      • 20. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 6, 2010 at 1:25 pm

        And is it just me and Paul, or does Deborah Saunders’ column sound rather reminiscent of the story of Chicken LIttle?

        Reply
      • 21. Paul in Minneapolis  |  August 6, 2010 at 1:27 pm

        Oh, I guarantee that Kersten’s next column will decry the Prop 8 decision. Guessing it will be next week (not this week), but it’s coming.

        Reply
      • 22. Paul in Minneapolis  |  August 6, 2010 at 1:30 pm

        Richard, it’s all about Chicken Little! The sky is always falling in their pathetic little world! Their collective squawking could drown out a fleet of jumbo jets!

        (Just got a visual of poor Saggie jumping up and down on a chair, flapping her arms and wailing, “the sky is falling! The sky is falling!” I think she’s wearing that magenta dress….)

        I, for one, am glad that I don’t participate in their reality!

        Reply
      • 23. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 6, 2010 at 1:45 pm

        Paul, that definitely makes two of us. And I guess magenta would be slightly more slimming on Maggie than Chicken Little Yellow would be wouldn’t it?

        Reply
      • 24. Paul in Minneapolis  |  August 6, 2010 at 2:26 pm

        I don’t think any color would help poor Naggie. She’s beyond hope.

        Reply
  • 25. Alan E.  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:52 am

    Subscribing!

    Reply
    • 26. Ronnie  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:06 am

      ditto….<3…Ronnie

      Reply
      • 27. JonT  |  August 6, 2010 at 1:43 pm

        ditto ditto.

        Reply
  • 28. Sagesse  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:52 am

    FWIW, the SF Chronicle had a very nice opinion piece hailing the overturn of Prop 8; in fact, there have been several… NYT, LAT, the Mercury, off the top of my head. Will try to find citations…. as soon as my inbox thins out :).

    Reply
  • 29. Steve  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:57 am

    This what it says on the SCOTUS walls:

    Reply
    • 30. AndrewPDX  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:17 am

      AWESOME!!!

      I always thought trying to reason with these idiots was like banging my head against a brick wall. I wrong. It appears from this image that it is really a marble wall.

      Live,
      Andrew

      Reply
    • 31. Eden James  |  August 6, 2010 at 12:50 pm

      Steve — great find! I posted it on the front page.

      Thanks so much.

      Eden

      Reply
  • 32. l8r_g8r  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:01 am

    elitism – 1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.

    Is calling other people (especially teh gheys) elitist a way of saying “They want to make the law because they’re smarter than us!”

    Hmm…

    Reply
    • 33. Straight Ally #3008  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:29 am

      “We’re under attack from the intelligent, educated segment of our culture!”

      -Pastor Ray Mummert

      Reply
      • 34. dtwirling  |  August 6, 2010 at 4:13 pm

        @ S.A.

        Please tell me that’s a joke and not an actual quote…

        Reply
  • 35. Linda  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:04 am

    It seems to me that every time our opponents use ‘the gay card’ as a reason why Judge Walker is wrong it just proves how right he was.

    The trial transcripts are public record, as is Judge Walker’s ruling. Nothing is a secret. My challenge to our opposition is: read through those and find the evidence Judge Walker ignored, and find the Facts Judge Walker incorrectly deduced.

    I’m tired of their rhetoric that is so empty of substance, but so full of hatred. My hope is that we will see more interviews such as the one Anderson Cooper did, with both sides represented, broadcast on news programs that reach the THINKING Americans. The ignorance and bigotry of our opposition needs to be fully exposed. It’s time for THEM to come out of the closet!

    Reply
    • 36. Lee  |  August 6, 2010 at 1:16 pm

      Does anyone have a link for the full court transcripts?

      Reply
      • 37. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 6, 2010 at 1:41 pm

        Lee, if you go to the home page of the P8TT, you will find on one of the sidebars a link to the AFER website, and there you will find all of the links to all of the filings and transcripts of this case. The reason I say transcripts is because each day’s transcript was a separate section. The total of just the trial transcripts is approximately 3,000 pages. I think it was somewhere around 2,800 or so. But that is probably the best way to find them.

        Reply
      • 38. Kathleen  |  August 6, 2010 at 2:45 pm

        Here you go:
        http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/our-work/hearing-transcripts/

        Reply
  • 39. Roger  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:04 am

    On an unrelated note I have a feeling that sooner or later someone’s going to fly off the rails and try to assassinate Judge Walker or Olson and Boies or someone tries to blow something up because of all this right wing crazy talk, I thought the Roe v Wade thing was bad and then I saw the teabaggers, and I thought the teabaggers were bad but now I see this.

    Reply
    • 40. Straight Ally #3008  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:27 am

      Roger,

      I hear what you’re saying – Judge John E. Jones III got death threats after the Dover “intelligent design” trial. What gives me hope is that the tide of public opinion turns in our favor every year, and it will become less and less of an issue.

      Reply
    • 41. AndrewPDX  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:27 am

      As horrible that is to imagine, and I in no way hope for it to happen, but if some crazy wingnut were to actually do this horrible unspeakable act… it would only serve to prove our point about the persecution of the LGBT community and our allies, galvanizing our community even more and gathering more support from the massive middle.

      I pray that this will not happen. We already have enough martyrs, we don’t need any more.

      Love,
      Andrew

      Reply
  • 42. Bolt  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:05 am

    She’s been barking the same regurgitated garbage since the California Supremes legalized ssm. According to her, she would have voted away prop 22. Isn’t she nice? She would give us her permission to get married via her vote.

    She doesn’t understand that her power over us, the ability to vote on our right to get married, is the inequality under the law that we’re correcting. If she doesn’t like it; tough shit!

    Reply
  • 43. Rebecca  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:24 am

    I don’t think this woman actually read the decision.

    Her main point, and I’m paraphrasing here: “Judge Walker said Prop8 was motivated by fear and animus against gay people….Wrong! But now that I mention fear, I mean, we do have reasons to be afraid: polygamy and teaching our children about gay sex!”

    Huh?? Didn’t she just totally contradict herself? She’s saying Prop 8 was not motivated by fear, then she lists why they should be afraid.

    And if she’d read the decision, she would have seen that Judge Walker addressed and DISPROVED the polygamy and “save the children” arguments in his findings of FACT.

    Walker’s decision is one of the clearest legal documents I’ve ever read. And far from responding to his legal findings, she goes right back to anti-equality rhetoric! The same rhetoric that got the Proposition overturned!

    The sheer stupidity is hurting my brain.

    Reply
    • 44. Dave P.  |  August 6, 2010 at 1:51 pm

      David Boies addressed this in his talk last night and he gave us all some advice. He said that when we are confronted by people who are blaming the judge or saying the people should vote blah blah blah, just tell them –

      READ THE DECISION. And THEN, you can tell us what part of it you don’t agree with.

      Until they read it, they have absolutely no basis for any argument at all. Just keep telling everyone to READ IT. And it couldn’t hurt for us to learn some of it so well that we can quote some of it to people who are too lazy to read it.

      Reply
      • 45. Sagesse  |  August 6, 2010 at 3:23 pm

        None of them read it. It’s all part of the ‘don’t confuse me with the facts’ school of political discourse.

        Reply
  • 46. JefferyK  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:27 am

    I have lived in San Francisco for 20 years now, and I have always been taken aback by the tone of the coverage of gay issues in the city’s major newspaper, the “San Francisco Chronicle.” Generally, coverage falls under two categories: “gay men as public health risk” and “women bare breasts at gay pride parade.” That’s about it. Regarding the Prop 8 ruling, the “Chronicle” has run three anti-gay editorials so far (Brown, Saunders, and Gallagher). Considering that of all American gay cities, San Francisco has the largest gay population, the paper’s conservative, anti-gay slant seems out of touch with reality.

    Reply
    • 47. Ann S.  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:32 am

      JefferyK, I agree that it is galling to see Brown, Saunders and Gallagher spout this stuff. At least the paper’s own editorial board has been writing pro-equality editorials, certainly during Prop 8 and now following this ruling.

      Reply
    • 48. ElsieH  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:49 am

      JeffreyK, totally agree. It’s a shame that such a world class city is stuck with such a crappy news paper. I don’t read it anymore.

      Reply
  • 49. PamC  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:31 am

    subbing

    Reply
  • 50. Anna Bryan  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:32 am

    I actually stopped the Chronicle delivery and avoid sfgate website at all costs. The editor is a right-wing conservative, and the paper reflects that bias.

    Given the larger percentage of liberals in the bay area, it’s no wonder that this paper is floundering and laying off staff, while other newspapers in the area flourish.

    Reply
  • 51. Ed  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:37 am

    Amusing, if only the sheeple wouldn’t believe this smack……

    Rush Limbaugh, from his show yesterday…..

    What a maroon….

    Ed

    Reply
    • 52. Sagesse  |  August 6, 2010 at 2:49 pm

      Now I remember why I don’t watch these guys. I’ve been slimed. Regardless of his message, if he doesn’t calm down he’s going to have a heart attack or a stroke.

      Reply
  • 53. Kathleen  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:42 am

    Bring on the emails!

    Reply
  • 54. Jacob  |  August 6, 2010 at 11:51 am

    When will we hear when/if stay is lifted?

    Reply
    • 55. anonygrl  |  August 6, 2010 at 12:54 pm

      I don’t know, but I wouldn’t get very hopeful about that. If Judge Walker lifts his stay, it is more than likely that the Appellate Court will issue one of their own.

      Reply
      • 56. Andrea  |  August 6, 2010 at 1:37 pm

        The legal threshold for a stay is “reasonable chance of success on appeal,” as we saw in the DC marriage case.
        The NOMmies would have to show a reasonable argument for overturning BOTH the “due process” and “equal protection” rulings. Either one of them alone would be enough to strike Prop 8 down. If they can’t show how they plan to do both, NOM gets no stay.

        It’s 2010. I’m done with this “anti-gay rules take effect immediately, pro-gay rules are stayed until the cows come home” double-standard. I’m sick of gays and lesbians and so-called “allies” who would entertain such a double-standard.

        I’m also quite sick of this in loco parentis attitude where everyone pretends to be so concerned about our feelings about the uncertain future, while simultaneously having no concern whatsoever over how we feel about the second-class citizenship, or the attempt to revoke pre-existing certificates, or having our families put up to popular vote in the first place, or the lying TV ads…

        Won means WON, dammit. We won.
        If we had LOST, we’d still be unable to marry.
        But we WON, so…

        Give us our marriage certificates already, as was the status quo before this idiotic unconstitutional ballot measure. Their unconstitutional vote took effect immediately, our very-constitutional ruling does too.

        The time for discussion was the trial. Which we, again, won. Marriages now. I’ll say “please” for politeness, but I’m not asking.

        Reply
  • 57. BradK  |  August 6, 2010 at 12:11 pm

    As a straight, white, and relatively affluent person, it’s easy for Debra Saunders to say that she doesn’t need the Courts to protect her rights…

    Not to mention that handy piece of the U.S. Constitution known as the Nineteenth Amendment.

    “Oh, but that’s different…”

    Reply
    • 58. AndrewPDX  |  August 6, 2010 at 12:24 pm

      Touché, mon ami.

      Love,
      Andrew

      Reply
  • 59. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  August 6, 2010 at 12:13 pm

    Also, how would Deborah Saunders feel if Susan B. Anthony had not taken a stand and helped to bring about women’s rights to vote? And I would like to Ask Deborah Saunders which of her rights she would like us to put up for a popular vote?

    Reply
    • 60. nightshayde  |  August 6, 2010 at 12:24 pm

      How about the right of right-wing heterocentrist clods to publish their right-wing heterocentrist garbage?

      (No – not actually serious. I know the 1st amendment gives them the right to spew their garbage all they want & I don’t want the 1st amendment to be … erm .. amended)

      I just get sick of all the ill-informed blather from people who don’t know what our branches of government are actually supposed to do…

      Reply
    • 61. anonygrl  |  August 6, 2010 at 12:52 pm

      She is probably not worried if you put ANY of her rights up to a vote. I am sure she assumes that if you did, the vote would always go in her favor. Just another part of the delusion.

      Reply
  • 62. Mike Livingston  |  August 6, 2010 at 12:31 pm

    Being bisexual, I now realize what a privilege it has been to LOVE both sexes, to have children, to have a totally monogamous relationship with a man. Bravo for equality, coming from a musician and retired college professor.

    Reply
  • 63. anonygrl  |  August 6, 2010 at 12:50 pm

    This comes from the NOM Blog

    Cardinal Roger Mahony, Archbishop of Los Angeles, wrote this week that Judge Walker “got it wrong,” focusing on feelings instead of facts:

    Today it was announced that U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker has ruled that Proposition 8 which was enacted by the People of California is unconstitutional. His decision fails to deal with the basic, underlying issue–rather he focused solely upon individual testimony on how Prop 8 affected them personally. Wrong focus.

    There is only one issue before each of us Californians: Is Marriage of Divine or of Human Origin?

    Judge Walker pays no attention to this fundamental issue, and relies solely upon how Prop 8 made certain members of society “feel” about themselves.

    Those of us who supported Prop 8 and worked for its passage did so for one reason: We truly believe that Marriage was instituted by God for the specific purpose of carrying out God’s plan for the world and human society. Period.

    Errr…. Cardinal Mahony? Excuse me…? Do you, by any chance, understand anything at all about how the legal system works? Your true beliefs have precisely zero weight in this issue, you know, because they have absolutely nothing to do with the law. You do get that, don’t you? The possible divinity of marriage is entirely outside the purview of the law. Not to mention that Judge Walker ruled on the Constitutionality of the law because that is precisely his job. And, had he focussed on feelings, not facts, his ruling would not have contained 136 pages, the majority of which, if you read it, you would know were exactly that, findings of fact.

    The law does not care what God’s purposes are. The law cares what CALIFORNIA’S purposes are. That is what Judge Walker ruled on. Period.

    Reply
    • 64. Dave in CA  |  August 6, 2010 at 1:23 pm

      Does Cardinal Mahoney understand that in this country, atheists, agnostics, non-believers, and members of non-Judeo-Christian religions, are allowed to get married?

      I guess he doesn’t.

      Reply
      • 65. nightshayde  |  August 6, 2010 at 1:25 pm

        All us non-Catholic sinners aren’t “really” married in the eyes of the Church, I’m sure.

        Reply
  • 66. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 6, 2010 at 12:51 pm

    So as I was trying to get to sleep last night…my arm loveinly draped across my snoring husband it occured to me just how UnChristian the NOMbies really are.
    Newest case in point was how they made sure no one but who they deemed appropriate was allowed to attend their ‘party’
    The profess over and over again what good hearted Christians they are and than by their very actions and words show the world otherwise.
    (Matthew 15:6–9).
    ‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth, and honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me.’

    Reply
    • 67. anonygrl  |  August 6, 2010 at 12:59 pm

      So very sadly true, Mark. And there is so little we can actually do to open the eyes of that sort of person to this.

      Mostly the best we can do is leave them to their delusions (in which they take comfort) and do our best to help people on the fringes escape and learn better.

      Reply
  • 68. Bob  |  August 6, 2010 at 1:57 pm

    What has it been three days now since little baby Roy was beaten to death,,, have we forgtotten,

    that’s who i ws thiniing about when I went to sleep, beaten for acting like a girl,

    I’m sure if the Cardinal was confonted with this story he would speak out about it, death is where they draw the line for hating the sin.

    NOM will be taking up the cause of the children to instill fear to garner their next cash infusion, like the old Anita Bryant days, they are coming after the children,

    What about baby Roy, he had a mother, but we don’t know the killer’s background other than he feared feminity, he was doing what has been done to many childrren, myslelf included , rough them up, toughen them up, beat the girl out of them, back in Reickers day, it was an accepted therapy, to slap the gay away, but today, what do we say, welll nothing,

    Remember back in the tracker days when Marie Osmond’s son committed suicide, these pages were full of discussion regarding that death, and specualtions , we went on endlessly about that death.

    Baby Roy, does not have a famous mother, he was brutally murdered on a reservation,

    Does one death deserve more attention than the other. I would say it’s a good time to talk about saving the children, because this case is a prime example. of fear in action

    Reply
    • 69. JonT  |  August 6, 2010 at 10:13 pm

      Bob, I’ve seen you comment on Roy’s death several times. I’ve avoided responding, because frankly it hurts to think about Roy and others who are victims of this kind of hatred.

      But, tonight I made an attempt to remember Roy, and a couple of others that are/were the victims of hate.

      http://catissad.blogspot.com/2010/08/price-of-hate.html

      We should never forget the real price of hate.

      Reply
      • 70. Bob  |  August 7, 2010 at 11:53 am

        THANK YOU So much JonT, especially for admitting your avoidance of the facts because they hurt too much,

        This is an excellent attempt, at remembering Roy and others who died because of hatred,

        Ronnie, you had the name of another boy that could be added to this list. I hope you see this post and add his name, the little boy who died on the couch while his parents were doing bible study.

        Also I was thinking about the link Kathleen posted, and I can’ find the thread, but it’s brilliant, about the University of Toronto, studies in genocide, and linking it to social deaths and genocide towards LGBT people as a goup. Maybe Kathleen could repost that link on this blogspot.

        And anyone else who can add a name or story to this page, people who died because of the fear of Rainbow People.

        Thanks again JonT, I know I’ve been going on about this, can’t seem to shut up, to the point most people probably avoid reading my posts,

        This blogspot you have created is an amazing gift, thanks for highlighting little Roy’s story along with all the others.

        I hope we can do more with this, it would take a person like Kathleen, if she reposts that link re genocide, and asks people to contribute to this page,

        My dream, is that someday a survivor will attend university and get that degree in genocide of LGBT people.

        Thanks Jon T

        Another good link ot this page, (I’m puter illeterate), would be some info regarding the “Convention of Rights of the Child” which the U.S. has not yet ratified.

        Let’s build a memorial for the children, resulting in a living legacy.

        I know it’s hard to focus on, but little Roy has been dreaming me , this is the start to answering that dream.

        Thanks JonT

        Reply
      • 71. Bob  |  August 7, 2010 at 1:30 pm

        update for little Roy, today at the Rally in Georgia Ms. King said she didn’t want to become extinct, better you die, get it…

        of and the reason that brute beat you to death was cause he didn’t have a real mom and dad who loved him……..

        Reply
      • 72. Ronnie  |  August 7, 2010 at 1:55 pm

        @Bob the story of the other little Boy i linked to was Ronnie Antonio Paris of Tampa, Florida….Here’s a link to the story, I have another link if you need it buts its easy to find more. The picture is small, maybe you can find a better one….. : ( ….Ronnie:

        http://queerday.com/2005/07/18/ronnie-paris-jr-beat-his-son-t.html

        Reply
      • 73. bumerry  |  August 7, 2010 at 9:11 pm

        We can’t ratify the Convention of the Rights of the Child, because our Supreme Court has specifically and repeatedly ruled that children do not have rights under United States law. I’m a social worker with PTSD from being abused as a kid, and this is a sore spot.

        The SCOTUS created a “the fundamental right to parent” which supersedes the Constitutional rights of the child. Life among them. This right, as you might imagine, makes child abuse prevention a nightmare. This is complicated by the fact that violent acts toward children are treated as a civil, rather than criminal matter, if the perpetrator is a biological parent.

        I’m not sure why….scratch that, I am quite opinionated on the social reasons WHY, but do not understand the policy decision to create a piecework civil child welfare system when criminal codes already existed.

        Until Americans believe that children have rights after they are born as well as before, we’ll remain barbaric standouts. But then, we’re used to that.

        Reply
  • 74. Bill  |  August 6, 2010 at 2:16 pm

    You know, it is completely ignorant and totally arrogant that anti-gay heterosexuals seem to believe that their right to vote includes a right to harm law-abiding citizens with that vote. Because it does not. Even when the majority agrees that it’s OK. Just this once. Because it’s just the gays.

    Singling out ‘certain’ citizens to be denied a fundamental civil right simply because the majority wishes to do so, clearly the Constitution does not permit.

    No matter WHAT god tells them.

    Reply
    • 75. Phillip R  |  August 6, 2010 at 3:03 pm

      Yea, I’ve given up trying to use logic with the “God hates homo’s” people. I am all for freedom of religion and would fight tooth and nail for those people to practice their own spirituality. Just unfortunate when that practicing attempts to change or effect the laws of the rest of us.

      If they are really overboard with the whole God thing, I just say that God told me it was fine. The bible is full of people who spoke to the divine, angels. *shrug* Prove that I can’t. It’s a circular argument that just doesn’t go anywhere. Even if I believed that there was a God and all that entails (I’m agnostic), I certainly wouldn’t deign to guess what his viewpoints are. As far as I’m concerned, that little voice in the back of my head is part of my connection to the ‘divine’. It says that gay is o-kay!

      Reply
    • 76. Kathleen  |  August 6, 2010 at 3:17 pm

      Here, here!

      Reply
  • 77. Bose  |  August 6, 2010 at 9:30 pm

    The striking thing about Maggie and Debra is that they are free to pick out any of the factual findings from Walker’s ruling and argue that the evidence cited was not credible, misinterpreted, or misapplied.

    But, they’d rather use eye-rolls, blanket generalizations, and character slams against Olson, Boies and Walker than face the facts directly.

    Reply
  • 79. Straight Grandmother  |  August 9, 2010 at 4:47 am

    I beg your patience, but I am going to repeate this post from
    Kathleen | August 8, 2010 at 11:44 pm
    From Jon Davidson of Lambda Legal:
    http://tinyurl.com/23vhbtt

    It deserves high scrutiny by us all, please read the article. I didn’t want anyone to miss it. There is a lot that is going to happen before we get full equality nation wide. I think we should ramp up the protesting, keep the pressure on.

    Reply
  • […] I gotta echo my colleague Eden, the SF Chronicle really is on a roll in publishing some terrible pieces. Last week, he wrote: […]

    Reply
  • […] it’s automatically “judicial activism”. Read a history book, people. Or Brian Devine’s post on the history of judicial review. Or watch fellow conservative Ted Olson. […]

    Reply
  • […] to not defend it was no exception (as have many of her recent pieces on Prop 8, as we’ve written in this space). In it, she thrashes Brown, the Attorney General whose job she claims it is “to represent […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Support the Prop 8 Trial Tracker

Connect with us

Get to know your fellow Prop 8 Trial Trackers on Facebook.

Please send tips to prop8trial@couragecampaign.org

Follow us on Twitter @EqualityOnTrial

Sign-up for updates on the Prop 8 trial, including breaking-news alerts.

Categories

TWITTER: Follow us @EqualityOnTrial

Share this

Bookmark and Share

SITE STATS (by Wordpress)

  • 4,585,293 views of the Tracker and counting as of today...