Already, just a day after the precedent setting decision of the California Supreme Court striking down gay marriage bans, the Christianists are going into overdrive whining and lamenting the decision are making untrue – yes, what a huge surprise – statements condemning the ruling. Putting aside the disingenuous argument that the rule is an example of out of control “activist judges" which I will address later in this post, when one examines the basis for their condemnation of the Court’s ruling, the Christianists’ arguments are based on two underlying beliefs:
(1) That CIVIL legal rights should be dispensed to citizens based upon whether or not those citizens conform to the Christianists’ religious beliefs inasmuch as these people believe that religious rights and civil legal rights are one and the same; and
(2) That mob majority rule dictates who receives CIVIL legal and that whatever the majority wants, the majority gets. The rule of law and minority rights have no place in their universe.
The former argument clearly flies against both the California and U. S. Constitutions that (a) grant freedom of religion and (b) bar the establishment of one set of religious beliefs as controlling the rights of those of other beliefs. What is even more frightening is that when one studies the web sites of the leading Christianist organizations, gay marriage is only one of the legal rights they want to bar. Add to that list divorce, birth control and non-sectarian schools.
(1) That CIVIL legal rights should be dispensed to citizens based upon whether or not those citizens conform to the Christianists’ religious beliefs inasmuch as these people believe that religious rights and civil legal rights are one and the same; and
(2) That mob majority rule dictates who receives CIVIL legal and that whatever the majority wants, the majority gets. The rule of law and minority rights have no place in their universe.
The former argument clearly flies against both the California and U. S. Constitutions that (a) grant freedom of religion and (b) bar the establishment of one set of religious beliefs as controlling the rights of those of other beliefs. What is even more frightening is that when one studies the web sites of the leading Christianist organizations, gay marriage is only one of the legal rights they want to bar. Add to that list divorce, birth control and non-sectarian schools.
*
The latter argument means that NO minority is safe in its legal rights since the whims of the majority can abrogate such rights at any time. This reality ought to terrify all minority groups, including black ministers who have to date been cynically manipulated by white Christianists to but into the anti-gay agenda. The anti-gay Southern Baptists – think homophobe Richard Land – and fundamentalist evangelicals are the descendants of the same folks who used the Bible to justify slavery and later segregation. Would that more black ministers knew their history and the fact that they have made a pact with the Devil. Ditto for Jews who are being mislead by Christianist support for Israel.
*
Illustrative of these Christianist themes are statements found made by Matt Barber, one of the men running Concerned Women for America and Jennifer Monk, legal counsel for Murrieta-based Advocates for Faith and Freedom in the Los Angeles Times, respectively:
*
Illustrative of these Christianist themes are statements found made by Matt Barber, one of the men running Concerned Women for America and Jennifer Monk, legal counsel for Murrieta-based Advocates for Faith and Freedom in the Los Angeles Times, respectively:
*
Barber: Concerned Women for America's Matt Barber predicted backlash to the California court's decision--which he termed "the worst kind of judicial activism.""So-called 'same-sex' marriage is counterfeit marriage," Barber said "If people who engage in homosexual behavior want to dress up and play house, that's their prerogative, but we shouldn't destroy the institutions of legitimate marriage and family in order to help facilitate a counterfeit."
*
Monk: In declaring a right to same-sex marriage in the California Constitution, the court showed an outrageous lack of respect for the expressed will of a majority of California voters and ignored a long history of legal precedent supporting traditional marriage," said Jennifer Monk, legal counsel for Murrieta-based Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a nonprofit that has represented the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund.
*
As for the alleged unelected "activist judge" argument, it simply does not wash in California. Andrew Sullivan has some interesting facts on his blog:
*
All seven members of the California court have been confirmed by the voters. Kennard -- confirmed 2006 with 74.5% Corrigan -- confirmed 2006 with 74.4% Werdegar -- confirmed 2002 with 74.1% Moreno -- confirmed 2002 with 72.6% Baxter -- confirmed 2002 with 71.5% George -- confirmed 1998 with 75.5% Chin -- confirmed 1998 with 69.3% Six of the seven were originally appointed by Republicans.
*
Add to this fact the passage of gay marriage legislation TWICE by the elected members of the California legislature and this argument falls utterly apart. Sadly, do not expect the main stream media to point out these facts. Rather, anchors who are hired based on looks instead of intelligence and analytical skills will merely parrot the Christianist claims. The talking heads will be little better in most instances as well. Thus, it is CRITICAL that members of the LGBT community know their facts and challenge the Christianist lies whenever and wherever possible.
1 comment:
I would only "second" Glenn Greenwald's comments: ONE MUST take California's judicial precedents in mind, which NONE of the activists did. Mayor Newsom's George Wallace tactics, Representative Leno's Israeli tactics, were RESCUED by -- of all people -- REPUBLICANS -- of which I am NOT.
But nor I am a Democrat, which, apparently, could NOT be found to celebrate with all one thousand bar goers in the Castro -- lest, Pelosi, Di-Fi, Barb, no longer have a GLBT issue, because of REPUBLICANS -- but the hypocrites do scatter when the light shines, do they not?
ONLY Schwarzenegger SHINES in this decision, which may explain why none of the Politburo tacticians are too happy. Democrats will not be able to bilk GLBT for campaign dollars and promises without delivering, if REPUBLICANS deliver because of PRINCIPLE. Impeach Schwarzenneger for EXPOSING the Democratic frauds. Watch Sean Penn play Harvey Milk, and who will play Ronald Reagan -- the ONLY one who counted when it counted?
Post a Comment