Look at that banner from my new favorite gay web site! Provocative, no?
The day after the decision in California, I'm still feeling ambivalent. A judge's signature will not change people's belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. Nopers. I also understand that my post-modernist queer theorist brothers will prolly say I'm a self-loathing faggot who needs to deal with his internal homophobia. To those insipid queens hiding behind their made up words and nonsensical phraseology I say fuck you.
The following quote is from a conservative gay blogger--mucho reviled by the queer left--- B. Daniel Blatt. I read his entire post where he rather cavalierly disses Judge Vaughn's decision to toss out Prop 8. I'll share my thoughts on the actual decision later but for now I tend to agree with Mr. Blatt's comments regarding a judge dismissing the will of the voting public.
If I read correctly, Judge Vaughn is considering leaving the ban on same-sex marriage in place until all this business is sorted out. I think that would be a wise choice. So, here is the quote I clipped from The Gay Patriot website:
"Walker’s ruling, however, is not a policy brief, but a judicial decision striking down a popular provision in the California Constitution stipulating that the state only recognize unions between one man and one woman as 'marriages.' With his decision, the judge prevented the people from settling the controversial issue of how states could recognize same-sex couples and personally assuming the responsibility for determining how the state may regulate the unions it recognizes as married.
"To be sure, he makes a good case for gay marriage, but a lousy one for usurping the power from the people to decide this issue. In this sense, his ruling becomes a political boon for the GOP — as it can tie his decision to the increasing sense that our governing bodies (e.g., Congress and the various bureaucracies it has created) are disregarding the popular will as they make laws and set policy." - Gay Patriot blogger B. Daniel Blatt
This quote was posted at Joe.My.God, a blog I follow. Joe describes Blatt's post as "simultaneously denouncing the overturn of Proposition 8 and exulting in the opportunity it might provide the GOP in November." Joe refers to these conservative persons as "douchenozzles." That's why I love Joe. He doesn't hide behind the post-modern vernacular.
Blatt isn't denouncing, rather he is critiquing the decision. And he is right. The whacked out wing of the GOP will latch onto this ruling as a grand example of activist judges and governing bodies ignoring the individual. I hardly call that exalting. I call that a wake up call to the so called gay leaders who are choreographing this delicate ballet all the way to SCOTUS.
I think it should be heard by the SCOTUS. Referendums aren't to go unchallenged if they stand a good chance of being deemed unconstitional at their core. In practice, denying the right of state sanctioned marriage, with all the accompanying accoutrements, both legal and 'linguistic', amounts to an ongoing and unfair discrimination of a selected group of citizens. It further delays the eventual social mainstream acceptance of such marriages to a non-novel event.....which they should be, just as divorce and bi-racial marriages are becoming.....still a long way to go, however. Fear and hate and just plain ignorance and apathy are slow to give ground.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Scott. Like Walker wrote, "...fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." Sometimes, voters (we) just don't get it right. Sometimes the Supreme Court doesn't get it right and then Congress has to act (or vice versa). It'll have to play out.
ReplyDelete