Wingnuts Threaten California Supreme Court

While Subway has done the right thing, the Christo-fascists and Mormons behind Proposition 8 are threatening nasty consequences if the California Supreme Court strikes down Proposition 8 on the basis that the "Yes on 8" crowd used the wrong amendment vehicle to try to amend the California Supreme Court. Since the California legislature had TWICE passed gay marriage bills, the wingnuts knew that they could not get the proposed amendment through the legislature. Hence why they used the initiative process that they did even though it sounds more and more that it was not the correct procedure (that and the fact that the Christianist attorneys are usually strong on ideology and short on legal skills). A Daily Kos diary has a run down on some of the threats and posturing going on amongst those who want a theocracy and care nothing about the constitution or rights of minorities. Here are some highlights:

*

Another nasty trend is emerging from the homophobes behind the Yes on 8 campaign. Apparently shocked by the national uprising in support of full equality under the law for gay/lesbian families, leaders of the Prop. H8 campaign have rolled out a new tactic: threatening the Supreme Court.

*

Andrew Pugno, their attorney turned up their dangerous rhetoric this weekend: What could get opponents of same-sex marriage in the street, however, would be the state Supreme Court tossing out the vote, he said. San Francisco city officials, joined by the city of Los Angeles and Santa Clara and Los Angeles counties, have petitioned the court to do just that. "I think you'll have a revolution on your hands at that point," Pugno said.

*

They’re freaking out. Good. It’s clear that the backlash to the vote has energized and strengthened the gay/lesbian rights movement in a nearly unprecedented way...and tarred the image of the Mormon Church and of anti-marriage activists. Let’s recall that is was the Yes on 8 folks who invented the camapaign tactic of intimidating and demonizing No on 8 donors.

*

The story also looks at the hand wringing pansies among the self-crowned leaders of the gay rights movement who are being out classed and out organized by virtual unknowns who have taken grassroots organizing to levels almost unheard of previously. One has to wonder whether these self-anointed leaders care more about becoming irrelevant than the cause of gay rights:

*

Despite this, the lgbt community gatekeepers, who were so ineffective during the campaign], are criticizing the protest and boycott movement. But given this description of the online and offline activists who have been leading this movement, I don't expect the gay gatekeepers to be too successful: "They are not connected to the supposed leaders. All they know is that their rights have been taken away and that the majority has successfully curtailed the freedoms of the minority." My response, of course, is what else are we supposed to do? Let hateful attacks go unanswered? Count on the Supremes to save our bacon?

*

The bottom line is that if each one of us doesn't get off our ass and work to make an impact, we cannot expect others to look out for our interests. HRC, the Task Force and similar organizations need to get on board and stop worrying if their leaders might get invited to a few less cocktail parties.