![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
Some dufus named Matthew J. Franck has written an opinion piece for the national review slamming the law suit against Prop 8 in California. His post was in direct response to a piece by David Boies that I commented on already.
Naturally, he tries to argue against Mr. Boies' suit by pointing out that he's making a bunch of straw man arguments. And, he does this by... making a bunch of straw man arguments! Dunder-head.
I had to respond to him by email with this:
Funny,
I'd say that about you.
"Nothing about their racial differences made for a relevant consideration between a man and a woman naturally capable of marrying."
Nothing about their being different genders are relevant for consideration in being "naturally capable of marrying" either. Marriage in and of itself is a man-made, civil contract matter. And ergo, there is no reason that same-gender couples should be any less "naturally capable" either... whatever that is supposed to mean.
"depriving lesbians of the right to marry each other could force them into marrying someone they do not love but who happens to be of the opposite sex."
This argument has actually been made by same-gender marriage foes in arguing that gays and lesbians aren't being discriminated against. Perhaps, not in court... you'd probably know more about that than I... but the pundits have certainly made that case. "Gays aren't being discriminated against because they can get married, if they'd choose a partner of the opposite gender."
"But it has everything to do with same-sex marriage's necessary severing of the link between marriage and procreation."
Talk about strawman arguments! By that logic, anyone who isn't planning on having kids should be barred from marriage. Along with: the old, the infertile, those who've had vasectomies, those who've had their ovaries or womb removed (perhaps due to cancer for instance)... this argument shows where your true motives lie - and its not with constitutional arguments, but with your definition of what marriage is for which sounds amazingly biblical. And, the bible doesn't dictate our laws - thankfully - we're not a theocracy.
"In any event, the question of changing sexual orientation is quite irrelevant to the issue of who is entitled to marry."
Really? Because if only straight people can marry each other, and gay people can only marry straight people then doesn't that imply that if only gay people would be straighter then they could happily marry? This is completely about orientation and whether one can 'be changed' in order to fit better into the straight world - including marrying.
"It is incumbent on him to show why restricting marriage to one man and one woman is a violation of those clauses."
It's a violation of the 'due process' and 'equal protection under the law' because it specifically targets one group and tells them specifically that they may not have 100% of the rights and priviliges of other groups of people.
"On the other hand, Boies passes merrily by the very serious argument that state recognition of same-sex unions as marriages will lead to official infringement of the religious liberty of many Americans."
Another straw argument. Those states with same-gender marriage recognition have already included rules barring the forcement of religious organizations to perform, recognize or acknowlege those unions in their religious settings. Religion and Government are two very separate things and secular laws are not dictated by the bible... at least they shouldn't be in a "free" society. As for the adoption question and Catholic organizations... I'd have to know more about why they've been forced out, but my first question is "Were they taking state funds to perform their works?" If the answer is 'yes, but...,' then shut up. If they're taking handouts from the state, they should be following the law and if they can't do that, then they shouldn't take state funds (including their tax exemptions). But, I would like to know more about why they can't operate as a private, religiously based adoption agency. That would seem unfair and unjust to me.
"It is a statement of fact about a central institution in our civilization—a fact historical, natural, and moral, backed up by many centuries of wisdom about men and women, children and families, law and culture."
Straw argument. Societal mores are not static and change over time and the law follows. 'Natural' and 'moral' are relative terms depending on the culture. And many centuries of wisdom also allowed slavery, miscegenation, disallowed men of women of different ethnicities from marrying, disallowed different Faiths from marrying, allowed people to be legally murdered for witchcraft, thought mental illness was actually possession by evil spirits, etc. etc. etc.
"Justice requires that the lawsuit brought by David Boies and Theodore Olson be laughed out of court."
Justice requires that the judges of the Supreme Court issue a reminder that "the bible says so" isn't a legal argument.
I would highly recommend that everyone email this twit and point out his utterly transparent attempts to paint somebody else with the very brush he's the one wielding... It's not even Pot/Kettle... it's trying to deflect attention from the empty arguments that the Right/Social Conservatives want to use that have nothing to do with an actual legal argument. MJFRANCK@MSN.com
I want to give a sincere and heart felt 'thank you, Sirs' to Ted Olson and David Boies for going where our gay, civil rights groups are too timid to tread....
Recently, Ted Olson and I brought a lawsuit asking the courts to now declare unconstitutional California's Proposition 8 limitation of marriage to people of the opposite sex. We acted together because of our mutual commitment to the importance of this cause, and to emphasize that this is not a Republican or Democratic issue, not a liberal or conservative issue, but an issue of enforcing our Constitution's guarantee of equal protection and due process to all citizens.
...
There are those who sincerely believe that homosexuality is inconsistent with their religion -- and the First Amendment guarantees their freedom of belief. However, the same First Amendment, as well as the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses, preclude the enshrinement of their religious-based disapproval in state law.
...
Susan Page guest hosted a Diane Rehm show last week on Gays in the Military, so I thought I'd give you all a linky to listen if you're in the mood.
I really don't know if this will do any good, but if you think that current Civil Rights laws at the Federal level should be expanded to gay citizens - feel free to sign.
http://www.thepoweronline.org/
Yes, that’s right: 40 years after Stonewall and a bit more than 10 years after Matthew Shepard’s torture and murder we are still dealing with the “gay-panic defense” – even by the heavily armed police.
And, what’s worse is the ridiculous claims that gay patrons, even when confronted by guns, tasers, and pepper spray are so over-sexed that they’d actually try to cop a feel of an officer’s crotch during a raid.
Unbelievable.
- Mood:Outraged.
Must be tough for Republicans and Social Conservatives when even the "evil, old gays want to destory our marriages!" meme isn't working anymore...!
- Mood:
pleased
Seriously, gang, this feels really big:
Unanimous ruling: Iowa marriage no longer limited to one man, one woman
This isn't some "liberal enclave on the coasts", but is 'middle-America' in all of its glory. I really didn't expect this result coming from one of the 'plain states'. I'm amazed and kinda excited.
But, we'll have to see if the Governor is going to accept this... or the actual citizens of Iowa. After all, just because an attempt at a constitutional amendment failed before doesn't mean it can't be rolled out again. And succeed, now that there's really something for the right-wing to seize on. After all, Prop 8 in CA passed - and that was a crushing shock.
Update: Bingo. That didn't take long.
- Mood: surprised
It's heartening to see that the "everyday-folks" who work in State are aware of and in opposition to the selected discrimination against same-sex partners of officials living and working in other nations. From Americablog.com:
emphasis mine -
The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of StateGee, thanks. Don't hurt yourself trying to correct this wrong or anything. And, just what "stakeholders" do you need to 'hear from'?! This clearly falls within the purvue of the Secretary of State's discretion; she needs to hear opposing views why exactly?
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20520
Madam Secretary:
We congratulate you on your Senate confirmation, and we look forward to working with you in promoting America’s interests and strengthening our national security in this rapidly changing world. Whether assigned stateside or overseas, Civil Service or Foreign Service, active or retired, we are all proud to be serving our nation.
We, the undersigned and representing the diversity of the foreign affairs agencies, would like to bring to your attention a matter that concerns us all. All of us are troubled that our families are not all treated equally and with the same respect. We are concerned that access to the federal health care insurance program is denied to same-sex partners of employees serving in Third World countries with substandard medical care. We question the logic of leaving same-sex partners to fend for themselves during an emergency evacuation of a high danger post. We are embarrassed when the Department will reimburse a variety of moving expenses, including the cost of transporting a pet, when an employee is assigned overseas, but will not do the same for a same-sex partner. We are saddened that individual and community safety are put at risk because full language instruction is not available to same-sex partners. We are uncomfortable that same-sex partners receive less compensation and fewer benefits for performing exactly the same job inside the mission as an opposite-sex spouse, that is, when same-sex partners are given a chance to work.
An order from your office designating same-sex partners as Eligible Family Members (EFMs) could remedy many of the inequalities that these families face. Other remedies will require coordination between the Executive and Legislative branches.
Madam Secretary, we believe that no colleague of ours is a second-class colleague, and no colleague's family is a second-class family. Given your commitment to protecting the safety and promoting the welfare of all Foreign Service families, we ask for your full consideration of our concerns and we hope that a dialogue aimed at ending this unequal treatment can be started.
Your loyal staff
Yes, you've read that right. Our government will pay to relocate PETS, but not same-gender partners... outrageous. And I like how if you happen to be the same-gender spouse of a diplomat and the embassy gets attacked, you're just supposed to look after yourself. While waving goodbye to the other spouses as they're air-lifted out, I'm sure.
Well, at least when they need emergency medical care, same-gender spouses can look up an understaffed, underfunded, poorly stocked and maintained 3rd world doctor to take care of 'em... nothing but the best!
And what is the response from the new State Department: (from WaPo.com)
A State Department official said Clinton had received the letter. "The secretary wants to review this soon and plans to hear from all relevant stakeholders," he added.
- Mood:Rolling my eyes and Grumbling
From 'the Atlantic' today:
Obama's Promises To Gays
While I want to believe that this is a new and positive chapter in American Gay History, I'm trying to temper my expectations by remembering that at the end of the day, the new President is still a politician. So, I have to ask... dare we even hope??
- Mood:
anxious
thoughtful
