Her headline makes me smile:
This should be fun. Whine, Maggie:
In a breathtaking exercise in ill-natured illogic, a divided Ninth Circuit ruled 2–1 that because Prop 8 does not take away civil-union benefits for same-sex couples, it’s an unconstitutional exercise in irrational animus towards gay people.
Uh, that’s not what they said.
Dishonestly, the court claimed it did not require any heightened scrutiny to reach this result.
No, actually they used Romer as precedent. It’s a famous case, Gallagher, look it up.
The very timid dissent (“please don’t go after me!”) points out that Baker v. Nelson is ruling precedent and that the differences between same-sex and opposite sex couples in terms of the state’s interest in responsible procreation could be rationally related to a legitimate state interest.
Yep, and Romer was two decades later. I mean, I’m sure there are folks out there who’d like the courts to appeal constantly to Dred Scott but they’re not good folks.
Back in 2004, when we fought about a Federal Marriage Amendment, gay rights advocates said we were alarmists for claiming that they would go to federal court seeking a right to impose gay marriage on all 50 states.
That was so last decade.
Boo hoo.
[h/t Blue Texan]
Maggie is thisclose to having to get a real job and it frightens her!
Wasn’t Mags supposed to testify for the Prop 8 supporters in the original trial but wimped out?
Baker v Nelson was in Minnesota. How can that even be controlling in CA?
Angry anti-gay activist Gallagher will do and say anything to justify her sins of gluttony, pride, lying and homophobia. Plus being strident brings in $$$ and she just loves her some $$$!
I agree with that headline as a Californian.
1964- President Johnson to white racists (most of the country at that time)-you are irrational bigots. Ummm, Maggie, he was right and so is the 9th circuit court.
I don’t know. I mean really, the courts are over-ruling a 52% majority at the moment. And this is California!
If you can’t get a downright LANDSLIDE vote on a hard-left social issue, in a place like California, I think the cause, in no uncertain terms, isn’t really well supported by the people. Not surprisingly it was also the most well funded campaign based on a social issue in US history, according to MSN. The homosexuals may be the “oppressed” ones in all these scenarios, but they hold the financial cards (and the media) whether or not they have the heartstings of folks.
California is a political flagship of sorts. If all of that liberal west coast culture can’t even muster the 70-80% majority that I would have imagined, I (would hope) that issue won’t go anywhere. Due to the court system however, it presumably will.
Yay! and now I get chewed out for the next half dozen comments. I’m gonna count how many times the words “bigot” and “hate-filled worm” (my personal favorite) come up.
Richard, if you’re going to go comment on a gay-rights website about how the LGBT community doesn’t deserve equal rights, then expect for us to react.
As a Californian, I can tell you that 1) most of the money came from out of state and was from the Mormon and Catholic churches, 2) young people have very different and more accepting views than their parents, and finally 3) civil rights shouldn’t go to a vote. That isn’t the way it works. That IS why they call them rights.
I do not understand how this chick is making headlines. Who hell cares what she thinks?
Badge Society LGBT Forum
@Richard – PLease check polling trends on gay marriage and also look at the states introducing new legislation. THere is now a new momentum not at all present when Prop8 went to vote.
Also, I dare you to read the actual Ninth Cct Ruling. It demolishes the arguments made by Prop8 proponents made during the campaign as misleading, irrelevant and motivated by animus towards a disfavoured group. The court are not overruling anything, marriage was already allowed anad it was Prop8 that took that right away and the Court ruled that taking away rights in the basis of disapproval is against the 14th Amendment.
THe ruling does not creat a right to gay marriage. It doe snot stop states from introducing leglislation to ban gay marriage if it does not already exist.
It stops the tryanny of the majority from taking away existing rights on the basis of disapproval of a group for the sake of being a member of that group and nothing else.
Can’t you see you are actually losing the arguments?
You win votes on the basis of scaremongering about ‘the children’ and a host of other unfounded antagonisms towards LBGT people. You lose court cases where rationality and logic and precedent prevail (thankfully).
You do see the difference?
I won’t use those words you mentioned. I will call you ‘LOSER’.
“isn’t really well supported by the people.”
Who cares what the ignorant, religious people think? The issue is MAJORITIES CANNOT PUT THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES TO THE VOTE. This is civli rights 101 and the fact that Americans cannot understand this basic concept shows how pathetic the educational system is, and how much dark-age thought still holds sway. “Democracy” does NOT mean rights can be put to the vote. Putting rights to a vote is bullying, nothing more. Now, all you dummies who support votes to oppress, shut up and go to school. Take some night courses in history and political science, and not at schools like BoJo U.
Let’s give Richard (the “Wing-nut”) some credit for apparently having a simple logical solution to the problem of an unpopular group being denied basic civic rights: All that group needs to do is become popular – because it was their own fault for being unpopular in the first place.
As we should all be able to understand, if a group is unpopular, it shows that there is something wrong with them, and thus they don’t deserve civil rights. So when they become popular, it shows that they have corrected their defects. That’s how pure democracy works.
The wing-nut said ” Not surprisingly it was also the most well funded campaign based on a social issue in US history, according to MSN. The homosexuals may be the “oppressed” ones in all these scenarios, but they hold the financial cards (and the media) whether or not they have the heartstings of folks.”.
That’s a lie. The anti-gays greatly outstripped the good guys in fundraising.
Anyone that self identifies as a nut, shouldn’t be suprised when people do not credit him with intelligence.
Priya–you’re right. Mormons are much better funded than gay people.
The vote against gay marriage was driven by aesthetics and religion, and probably in that order. Religion is by common practice if not definition, irrational (believing something without evidence or with unfounded evidence). Does it surprise anyone that in this hyperreligious, dumbed-down nation that a largely uneducated populace without basic reasoning skills would vote against something they thought was a bit yucky anyway? I would be surprised if a gay marriage amendment ever passes in ANY state.
I would also have been surprised if civil rights legislation for Afro-Americans would have ever passed in ANY state in the 1960′sor ’70′s. And for the exact same reasons.
I like the way she says: “impose gay marriage on all 5o states”. Like they’ll make her marry some woman just to “impose” it on her sorry a*s. This woman, like almost all of the anti leaders, is detestable. If she ever actually speaks something resembling the truth, let me know. I’ll bet her a*****e clenched like a fist when the Prop 8 verdict came down. Maggie, go the f**k home, get a real job, live your life, and let us live ours as equals under the law. Is that asking too much of your sorry a*s? Stop preying on the gullible, feeding them lies, deliberately using us to keep from working at a decent job, and draining their wallets because you just don’t like us. The very thought that the law might treat us just like it treats you is repugnant to you, isn’t it? Gay people equal? Never, huh Maggie. You detestable slug.
This isn’t “democracy in action” or about “equality.” This is about subversion. The minority dictating to the majority what is politically correct, what is supposed to be. I cant legislate anyone’s happiness. That’s not the concern of the legislature. You can pursue all of the happiness you wish, within the realm of the law. Nonetheless, you have as much God given worth as the next person, but you are different. Many of us are. Think of it this way, if everyone was treated 100% equally, there would be no affirmative action, no housing assistance, no welfare; because that acknowledges inherrent differences in peoples’ status. Logistically, there are different people, and the law must account for this. Civil unions? Have fun. But it will not and cannot be the marriage of men and women, nor will it entail the same privileges.
Mr. Wing-nut, no one is asking that happiness be legislated, only that equality be.
Just as men and women aren’t different from each other in any way that justifies discrimination gays and lesbians aren’t different from heterosexuals in any way that justifies discrimination.
And I’ll add that affirmative action, welfare, and housing assistence all exist to make people more equal, not to deny some people what other’s have.