[An article about how fundies are attempting to stall the decision of the California Supreme Court which declared a gay marriage ban unconstiutional. They send a form letter to all of the county clerks asking they not issue any marriage licenses to gay couples looking to marry.]
Randy Thomasson:
[snip]
Gary Kreep:
27 comments
So, essentially, you are asking the clerks to break the law, but you are too chickenshit to come right out and admit it.
Why not have a ballot where we ask the majority if they want to take Randy's house and car away from him and kick him out of the state? I mean, if everything is to be decided by majority rule without regard to individual rights, we should get a vote on that, too.
"We're encouraging the clerks to abide by the express will of the written California constitution..."
You already have it. The judges decided what the California constitution says on the matter.
"We're asking that you please decline to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples unless and until the Legislature changes the marriage statutes..."
The legislature DID change the marriage statutes. It was ruled unconstitutional. YOU LOST. Give it up.
It never fails to amaze me how fundies--who love to bring up the Constitution (cherry-picking it all-the-way)--can't seem to understand that America is a Democratic Republic, not a democracy. Maybe if we normal people voted them out of the Union, and the Courts declared that unconstitional, they'd finally figure out the difference.
But probably not. :(
"...to respect the democratic process which will be decided at the ballot box in November"
I would have thought that if you really did respect the democratic process, you would use it to make the changes you want instead of bullying clerks into breaking the law for you.
We think the law should be this, it's not yet... but we want to try and change the law to reflect our ideals and we want you to break the law until we can get it changed. Which we really hope will happen... even though it hasn't yet, but we think it should so everyone should do it our way, because this is a democracy.
Let me change this around to make it clearer for you:
"We're encouraging the Guards at city hall to abide by the express will of the written United States constitution and the secular state statutes, and to respect the democratic process which will be decided at the ballot box in November, by refusing entry to anyone who refuses to endorse those sections,"
"We're asking that you please decline to issue state funds, including any exemption from taxation, to religious groups of any kind unless and until the Legislature changes the funding statutes, the people change the constitution, and/or all legal options have been exhausted,"
That is what you are asking.
So are you going to feed these clerks families when they lose their jobs? Because that will be the end result of your little protest.
Of course you won't get your hands dirty, your type never do.
@Papabear: True, but it's interesting to note that the marriages that they should be concerned about - and by this, I mean marriages between pedophiles and underage girls - are not worth talking about, apparently.
Fundies will rant and rave about the impropriety of homosexual marriages, yet where was all the fire and brimstone when the Texas polygamist scandal broke? You rarely heard fundies voicing their outrage at the abuse directed at women, girls, and even boys in that cult. Why? Was it because the sexual activity (which was essentially rape) was somewhat legitimized because the men 'married' those girls? Was it because at least it was people of opposite genders marrying? Or was it because they figured, "Oh, well, she's a girl, he's a man, she's fertile, so she can pump out more babies for Jesus!" The depravity of that cult and the hypocrisy of the fundies is sickening.
Judicial activism: any judicial decision I don't like.
The Constitution (Federal or State): a legal document that enshrines my personal preferences and prejudices into law.
Common Law: The Way We've Always Done It. Like beating up queers and not paying taxes.
The legislature DID change the marriage statutes. It was ruled unconstitutional. YOU LOST. Give it up.
Well, the legislature passed a marriage-equality law (twice ), but the Governator vetoed it (both times). Now, though, even Ahnold doesn't support the amendment-by-ballot: even he can see that making people's rights subject to repeal by majority vote at any time is a Very Bad Idea.
You know, I have to honestly say that the idea of abolishing recognition of religious marriage and making it a solely civil function is looking better and better every day. I mean, oh gee, now if you want to have a church marriage you have to file two documents instead of one. Oh, wait. It wouldn't be that different from the way it is now, would it?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
