File this one under "we don't want a pony; we just want the president and the party to stop giving them to bigots." The president consistently speaks out about his religion-based opposition to same-sex marriage and this makes it easier for gay people to be demonized by the other side - and for the other side to claim that laws enacted based on religion aren't bigoted, unless our president is a bigot.
The party has been the only one in recent memory with a history of enacting anti-gay laws. They proudly stood up for bigotry when they helped pass DADT and DOMA and the reasons behind those laws were very clear - they wanted to punish gay people.
The Prop. 8 proponents' emergency petition to the Ninth Circuit for a stay makes good use of the Democrats' political homophobia.
The United States Congress, in defining marriage for all federal-law purposes as the "legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife," 1 U.S.C. § 7, thus stood on firm historical ground when it expressly found that, "[a]t bottom, civil society has an interest in maintaining and protecting the institution of heterosexual marriage because it has a deep and abiding interest in encouraging responsible procreation and child rearing. Simply put, government has an interest in marriage because it has an interest in children." Committee on the Judiciary Report on DOMA, H. Rep. 104-664 at 48.
See? The government has to "protect marriage" from the homos because it has to "protect children." And of course the way to go after irresponsible procreation isn't to punish people who irresponsibly procreate. Oh, no. No no no. The way to go after those who irresponsibly procreate is to hurt gay people as much as possible.
So thanks Congress for your judiciary report on protecting the institution of marriage from the gays. I love you.
Then the president's words are used as proof that it's totally rational for the government to punish gays by taking away the right to marry from us (in order to stop irresponsible procreation, apparently.)
As an initial matter, redefining marriage in this manner would eliminate California’s ability to provide special recognition and support to those relationships that uniquely further the vital interests marriage has always served. See BARACK OBAMA, THE AUDACITY OF HOPE 222 (2006) ("I believe that American society can choose to carve out a special place for the union of a man and a woman as the unit of child rearing most common to every culture."). Plaintiffs surely have not met their burden of proving that the voters could not have entertained any rational concern that this profound change could harm those interests.
That's great. A constitutional scholar says that something that's "most common" is right. Awesome. And this helps how? Men/women pairings are not special. This brief itself goes into great detail explaining that people need to get married to stop their irresponsibility. Other filings by the proponents have basically implied that marriage needs to be between a man and a woman to stop deadbeat dads who don't know that they need to pay for their child or be in its life. So apparently opposite sex couples aren't these awesomely moral expressions of Christian love and faith in God. They're just stuff the government needs to mandate because the people in the couplings are so awful without them.
No need to put opposite sex couples on a pedestal.
Nor can the court’s inference be limited to California, for it necessarily attributes anti-gay animus to all who affirm that marriage, in its age-old form as the union of a man and a woman, continues to rationally serve society’s interests, including the citizens and lawmakers of the 45 States that have maintained that definition, the Congress and President that overwhelmingly passed and signed into law the federal Defense of Marriage Act, a large majority of the federal and state court judges who have addressed same-sex marriage, and the current President of the United States.
Get it? It's not hatred if even the government and your allies turn against you. It's just rationality and common sense. If people who get elected by claiming to be among your strongest supporters decide that maybe the government should punish you for being gay after all by taking rights away from you, then obviously it's okay.
Again I'd just like to thank the Democrats who helped pass DOMA and DADT and who won't overturn them now. I'd like to thank Senator Webb who still opposes DADT repeal even when an enormous majority of the country supports it. You guys have helped the opposition in ways you can't even imagine. You've galvanized a whole movement to protect marriage from gay people. And you've prolonged the institutional stigma against us for decades now just to curry favor with the dimmest bulbs around you.
And, oh yeah, some of you even voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment! So, awesome job. You've really helped to make equality a reality for Americans and this is dry sarcasm if you did not know. It's way, way past the time of just being quiet. These people are using your hateful actions and words to hurt us still and nobody gives a FUCK. Nobody is trying to repeal this stuff or work for us. Shit, the administration still calls gay relationships similar to pedophilia and incest.
Imagine if some right wing blogger tomorrow said that the president and his wife's relationship is like pedophilia or incest. There would be screaming from just about everyone. So why is it still okay to refer to gay relationships that way and why is it okay when a Democratic administration does it?
Perhaps this can be stopped by doing something as novel as... stopping it. Just stop it. Don't say things against us and they can't claim that you do!
Here's the footnote to that last quote I linked:
22 See Senator Barack Obama, 2008 Human Rights Campaign Presidential Questionnaire at 3, available at http://www.lgbtforobama.com/... ("I do not support gay marriage. Marriage has religious and social connotations, and I consider marriage to be between a man and a woman.")
Religiously speaking, a constitutional scholar can't ask his government to stop punishing gays and lesbians by taking away our right to marry. That's just about the biggest line of bullshit I've ever heard. I don't care about his personal opinion. I don't care if he thinks gays are icky. I don't care if he loves Jesus so much that it precludes him from allowing two committed people to show their love by being allowed to marry each other "til death do us part."
I don't want the damn President of the United States advocating bigotry. Ever.
And definitely not a DEMOCRATIC President.
The brief also points out that all of the Prop. 8 ads about protecting children, all of their attacks on gay people about our implied affinity for kids, all of those are in fact rational concerns and not as evil as they're being portrayed, because of the Congressional report on DOMA.
Thus, though the district court faulted supporters of Proposition 8 for focusing on "protecting children," Ex. A at 134, there is nothing surprising or sinister about this concern. After all, as demonstrated above, a central and abiding purpose of marriage has always been to promote responsible procreation and thereby increase the likelihood that children will be born and raised in an enduring and stable family environment by the men and women who brought them into the world. "Simply put, government has an interest in marriage because it has an interest in children." Committee on the Judiciary Report on DOMA, H. Rep. 104-664 at 48.
So William Tam and others can say whatever they want in their depositions because Congress has already agreed. Again, thanks Congress. You're still hurting us every day and we love you for it. In fact I've never been so excited about voting for you and giving you money and volunteer time in all my life. That was sarcasm again.
The proponents mention, again, that it can't be bigotry because the President feels that way.
Nor can the Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558
(2003), be understood to have brought this long tradition to a grinding halt and to have effectively expelled from the political process Americans whose views on issues of profound social and cultural importance are entwined with their faith or moral values.24
24 See Barack Obama, Civil Forum on the Presidency at 20 (August 16, 2008), transcript available at http://www.rickwarrennews.com/... ("I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. ... [F]or me as a Christian, it’s also a sacred union.")
The sacred union between a man and a woman. Got it, thanks.
I wish that the President and Congressional Democrats would just stop this already. And it's not enough to just shut up anymore. Believe me, I'd be happy if neither the President nor the Congress ever said a single word about gay people ever again, because it never goes well for us, but at this point it's impossible. The President and Democrats need to do a lot of work to correct this perception they've given the country - that gays are so awful and marriage needs to be protected from them. Among many other perception that come directly from government actions toward us.
You'd've thought they'd be busting their ass right now, before this election, to try to fight back against their past, outdated stances, but like Hillary Clinton's position on the Iraq war which cost her the nomination, they're fully digging in. We'll see how that continues to work for them.