Tweet
Why didn't Maggie Gallagher testify at the original Prop 8 trial?
In celebration of yesterday’s Appeals Court ruling against Proposition 8, I was going to write something uplifting about the perseverance of the lgbtq community.
But I decided not to.
For one, I am sure that there are so many others who are going to be dwelling on that subject. For another, based upon the reactions coming from the religious right, I feel that another direction is in order, i.e. a missive directed to Maggie Gallagher, the National Organization for Marriage, the Family Research Council, and all of those other folks whining about Tueday’s ruling.
This missive would have included Mitt Romney because of his negative words regarding the ruling. However, seeing that it is Mitt Romney, I figure a week from now will find him supporting the ruling.
Maggie Gallagher sent out the following twitter message:
Meanwhile, others such as the Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, etc. have sent out the usual junk about “unelected judges,” “activist judges,” “redefinition of marriage,” and all of the other hyperbolic mess we have come to expect from them.
But here is my question to them, and it’s relatively simple.
Just where were these folks when the original trial was taking place last year? Why didn’t any of these folks testify as to why Prop 8 was needed? Remember, the pro-Prop 8 side could only find two witnesses and both did a poor job defending the law. One witness, David Blankenhorn, inadvertently made the case for the anti-Prop 8 side!
Where were Gallagher, Brian Brown, Peter Sprigg, Tony Perkins, or any of these other folks who put so much work in getting the law passed? Gallagher’s tweet alleges that seven million people voted for the law. However amongst those seven million, only two witnesses could be found?
Whom are they kidding?
All of this outrage after the fact is bogus. It’s a diversion and a pitiful one at that. It’s an attempt to obscure a basic fact.
And that basic fact is that Proposition 8 was built with deliberate lies that Maggie Gallagher, Tony Perkins, Peter Sprigg, and the rest of those pushing it were too fearful to defend in court.
None of these people – not one – had the guts to stand up in court, take an oath, and attest to the veracity of the claims they made regarding what allegedly would happen should marriage equality become legal in California, because they knew that the lawyers attacking the law – David Boies and Ted Olson – would call them out and reveal their deception.
So, Maggie dearest and the rest of you folks, please stop whining. You are not fooling anyone. You dug this hole yourself, so you have no reason to cry out when the dirt comes in to bury you.
28 Comments
For Maggie, Brian, Peter, Tony and all their buds, waving the gay card is about keeping up the gravy train for their own livelihoods, keeping their expense accounts open.
They know what is coming and they are scared shitless. Their expense accounts are going away. Their salaries are at risk.
They have only gotten along this far because the “liberal” media let them get away with their worn out talking points (and long ago disproven ones, at that).
Good points. You’d think that with 7 million prop 8 voters to choose from, ONE of them could have shown up…
Prop 8 was poorly crafted and poorly defended from the start. As the 9th circuit’s decision explained, it is an obvious attempt to baselessly single out a group from using a particular label while at the same time still providing that group ALL the incidents and benefits that go with said label. As such, it cannot pass the rational basis test.
I’ll be curious to see whether they appeal en banc, or skip straight to SCOTUS.
Easy answer: It was Ted Olson, I believe, who pointed out during a “discussion” with Tony Perkins, that if they testified they’d be under oath, and a witness stand is a lonely place to lie.
They can’t acknowledge the facts, and in a court of law, their opinions are irrelevant.
There’s a rule for wingnut spokeswomen. They have to be less than 30 years old, blond, pretty and perky. No wonder Gallagher wouldn’t testify.
They’re not trying to fool anybody, they’re trying to rally their base. Yeah, we know why they wouldn’t testify. But their base likely thinks it was because:
1) They’d have been in front of a gay judge would would have permitted their rights to be violated on the witness stand.
2) The lawyers against prop 8 were bought and paid for by the liberal elete, the Gay Conspiracy, or George Soros.
3) Gays would have sought revenge, committed acts of violence, or caused boycotts against anyone who stepped forward.
4) They were prevented from testifying because the liberal gay judge feared their testimony, so they were excluded.
Boxturtle (And facts won’t change their minds!)
The rule is “Pretty or not, don’t ever say anything under oath”
Boxturtle (And remember to begin every sentance with “This is all Obama’s fault because…”)
Alvin, you could not have written a better column than this one. What a telling observation! Bravo!
There’s that too.
Current Salon has very long article about Maggie…probably more than your want to know. But timely and interesting.
Actually her tweet was spot on. The court did in fact call 7 million people irrational bigots. Which they are. Just because there are 7 million of you does not make what you do right. I’ve seen bigots in action and in every case they just cannot accept the fact that they are indeed bigots. Just like in the South where you’ll never find so much as one white right wing racist anywhere no matter how hard you try.
Eh? The gay-H8ing and/or closeted conservatives scored a huge enormous WIN with the 9th Circuit ruling against Prop H8. Now all of these emotionally & reality challenged bigoted H8ers can commence immediately & directly to their favorite station of the cross: intense victimization! Zmong! Victimized by teh gheyz, no less! Double Zmnong! Definitely “activist judges” doing something wrong! It’s a trifecta of victimhood! Yay.
Ah, it’s a great great great day, indeed, for the gay-H8ers out there.
I think it was Boies, rather than Olson. But I remember that too, and remember thinking when I heard it that it was going to be one of the memorable lines of our generation.
“A witness stand is a lonely place to lie.”
Quibble: The court pointed out that 7 million people were irrational bigots.
Boxturtle (The court didn’t call the voters anything)
Most of those 7 million irrational CA bigots – currently & vastly *enjoying* their present victimhood – were encouraged immensely & with a lot of money paid for robo-calls, door knocks, flyers, signs, etc, to vote for Prop H8 by the LDS “Church” in Utah.
If Utah-dwelling Mormons wish to pass a similar prop/law in Utah: be my guest, but stop shitting your crap on my state, thanks very much.
It’s good to savor a win at the 9th; however, one can’t hang a hat there for long.
There’s going to be a dead zone for awhile until SCOTUS gets this and acts. Very unlikely to be this year, no? 2013?
In the meantime one can hope Kennedy wakes up one morning and notices that opinions continue to shift in favor of equality on this.
Ninth Circuit to Maggie Gallagher: “That is correct.”
From what I understand the language of Prop 8 was so confusingly written that many voters thoughts they were voting FOR gay rights.
Just goes to show, you don’t HAVE to lose your memory as you get old as the hills. ;^) ( or your sense of humor)
I enjoy the thought of all the $$$$$$ they lost.
I wonder if any of the wingnuts even read the Ninth Circuit opinion (although to be fair, I wonder the same about the liberals that are celebrating this). Someone needs to tell Maggie that the Court went out of its way NOT to call California voters irrational bigots (even though as we all know, many of them were/are):
“Absent any legitimate purpose for Proposition 8, we are left with ‘the inevitable inference that the disadvantage is born of animosity toward,’ or, as is more likely with respect to Californians who voted form the Proposition, mere disapproval of, ‘the class of persons affected.’ … We do not mean to suggest that Proposition 8 is the result of ill will on the part of the voters of California. ‘Prejudice, we are beginning to understand, rises not from malice or hostile animus alone.’ … Ultimately, the ‘inevitable inference’ we must draw in this circumstance is not one of ill will, but rather one of disapproval of gays and lesbians as a class. … Under Romer, we must infer from Proposition 8′s effect on California law that the People took away from gays and lesbians the right to use the official designation of ‘marriage’ — and the societal status that accompanies it– because they disapproved of these individuals as a class and did not wish them to receive the same official recognition and societal approval of their committed relationships that the State makes available to opposite-sex couples.”
Maggie can’t disagree that the entire Prop. 8 campaign was about expressing disapproval of gay and lesbians family “as a class.” All of the advertising was based on that notion, and the official argument in support of Prop 8 included the statement “We should not accept a court decision that may result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay.” Obviously, that would only be a problem if they did not think that marriage equality was “okay” or that gay and lesbian relationships were not “the same as traditional marriage,” as they put it.
Maggie and the other haters just keep proving the point of marriage equality activistis — and, now, of the Ninth Circuit.
A ridiculous allegation.
Her argument is ridiculous, but that number is correct. Of course, she forgets about the 6.4 million who voted against Prop 8. And the population of California in 2008 was about 38 million people, with more than 17 million eligible voters, so although a slight majority of voters may have approved of Prop 8, there’s no evidence that the state as a whole did.
I would ask if they have no sense of shame and how stupid and ugly they sound but we all know the answer to that.
Well to quibble this even more the court did not point out any such thing. They implied it while politely accepting that they could not judge the motivation of the voters.
In reality, the judge went out of his way to be very, very friendly towards the Yes on 8 side. Far more so than they deserve:
I agree, and ironicly I agree w/ Maggie Gallagher for once. The 9th circuit did indeed say that 7 million people are irrational bigots. However, there are approximately 24 million eligible voters in California (17 million of whom are actually registered), so they are far from the majority.
The decision of the 9th circuit is based upon and directly reaffirms that rights once recognized, cannot be done away with, either by legislative or judicial fiat, or popular vote.
*sigh*…when will they ever learn?
.
Haaa, obviously you’ve never even been to the South !