« They bite back | Main | The Knucklehead of the Day award »

"Gosh, I Hope My Guy Was Lying To Me!"

As the aftermath of the passing of Proposition 8 in California, undoing the court decision that legalized same-sex marriage, continues to unfold, I find myself exceptionally amused at the antics. I think I find them so amusing because I have the benefit of distance -- were this unfolding in my back yard, I think I'd be far more outraged.

What strikes me as particularly entertaining is how the opponents of the measure are acting. The screaming hypocricy of their deeds should drive any reasonable person to either fury or gales of laughter -- and my doctor advises against letting myself get too infuriated too often.

First up, who cannot be entertained by all the people pinning their hopes on Barack Obama? They have convinced themselves that he will, indeed, see the justice of their cause and -- with a wave of his hand -- grant them all that they wish. To do so, they have to overlook his public statements opposing gay marriage and supporting the Defense of Marriage Act.

I have to admit, it's darn fun to find myself holding a position that's more liberal, more progressive, more enlightened, and more left-leaning than Barack Obama. After all, I'm on record numerous times in favor of legalizing gay marriage.

Next, there's the way that the forces who proclaim themselves the champions of tolerance, of embracing diversity, of rejecting hate, demonstrating the very worst of their natures when they are confronted with those who disagree with them. People who donated money in favor of the Proposition have found themselves on a new Black List and are being hounded out of their jobs for merely expressing their First Amendment rights. And one little old lady who had the presumption to show up to one of their rallies bearing a cross had her crucifix taken from her and smashed.

Somewhere, a couple of old gay men have to be smiling. Despite the way history has treated them, their tactics have been ultimately embraced by their fellow homosexuals. Congratulations on your legacy, Senator Joe McCarthy and FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover.

The losers are also targeting the Mormon church, which spent a lot of money backing the proposition. This is the safe approach -- Mormons are among the least likely people to respond to threats and intimidation forcefully. (It's a pity the upset people couldn't find enough Quakers to go after.) Funnily enough, I'd be willing to bet that the number of Mormons who actually voted in favor of Proposition 8 is dwarfed by both members of black and Hispanic churches, who also spoke out loudly for the measure. But those groups are, traditionally, a bit more boisterous and high-spirited, and wouldn't take the bullying tactics quite so civilly as the Mormons.

Finally, there's the always-predictable rejection of democracy. The people have spoken on this matter, and have said no to gay marriage. In fact, they have said no to it twice -- a similar petition was approved a couple of years ago, and struck down by the same court that suddenly discovered the right to gay marriage was sneakily buried in California's constitution, just waiting for the right clever people to find it.

As I said, I'm in favor of gay marriage. I think it's coming, and I think that it will, overall, be a good thing for the nation. But I support it coming about by legislation, not litigation. Not only do I think that new laws and policies should come primarily from the legislative branches, but I think that bringing it about by such non-democratic means as judicial fiat will only galvanize the opponents and get them to push back as hard as possible -- even, perhaps, to the point of repealing steps already made in the right direction.

Kind of like what's happening in California right now.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Gosh, I Hope My Guy Was Lying To Me!":

» Pirate's Cove linked with Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup: 200th Edition

Comments (38)

I see no reason for homosex... (Below threshold)

I see no reason for homosexual marriage. Why mutate what marriage is just to make those that chose not to marry happy by calling what they want marriage. Saying that... what NH and VT have done is the direction it should be - Civil contracts. Who really can argue against legal binding contracts between two adults?

now onto 0bama. He should have after the election stepped forward and pushed the issue to how he campaigned. This would have demonstrated his leadership and given him a chance to prove that he campaigned on what he believed.

Of course, if the people of... (Below threshold)

Of course, if the people of California had voted to ban gun ownership, the Left would be hailing it as a great "progressive" victory, while calling the protesting gun rights advocates stupid, racist, knuckle-dragging rednecks.

Instead, we get "How dare they vote away our rights? It's outrageous!!!"

Irony, they name is Leftist.

Homosexuals are not happy u... (Below threshold)

Homosexuals are not happy until they control your rights.
Why can they not settle for a civil union?
Why must they infringe upon religious beliefs?
Why must they continue to shove acceptance of their life style down people's throats?
Why do they feel they need to flaunt their life style in the public streets with gross acts?
Do they really hate what they are to the point that they need all the public attention?
There is a saying "squeaky wheels get the grease" and that is exactly what they are persistently trying to do.
They and their life style would be a lot easier to tolerate if they weren't so blatant about it.

Homosexuality to most ameri... (Below threshold)

Homosexuality to most americans is a sexual deviancy. They need to be pitied not enabled. ww

You may not have as much di... (Below threshold)

You may not have as much distance on this thing as you think. Today, (Sat. Nov. 15th) they're planning nationwide protests over the California decision. I'm calling it National Temper Tantrum Day, but they call it "Join the Impact". Chances are there will be a protest somewhere near you.

You too can go out and call your political opposition "haters", "bigots", and "evil", thus hardening their positions and ensuring they'll never vote for you side ever again.

These people are a bunch of 3-year olds.

fg : "Why must they infring... (Below threshold)

fg : "Why must they infringe upon religious beliefs? "

In my experience, many churches in this country, consider marriage a sacrament -- something on a par with communion, baptism, and the ordination of clergy.

In most of these churches, the minister/priest/rabbi/(other) won't marry you without a marriage licence, a document issued by the state government.

Talk about infringement on religious beliefs, you can't participate in a sacrament of your church without a license from the government.
Are there any other sacraments you would like to be licensed by the state?

The sacred and secular parts of marriage should be separated. Anyone who wants to get married in a church should able to do so as long as the church agrees. The government should have no part in the process.

Similarly, any two people who want to enter into a legal contract which conveys the same rights and responsibilities currently given to married couples, should be able to do that.

Other countries operate is a similar manner -- a church wedding carries no legal weight, you need to go through a civil ceremony to be legally married.

California's constitution c... (Below threshold)

California's constitution can be *amended* by a majority vote, but it can only be *revised* with the approval of two-thirds of both houses of the legislature and then submitted to voters. This vote was a REVISION that removes the constitutional guarantee of equality. A majority is not granted the power to take away a right guaranteed by the constitution.

It is unjust and unconstitutional to discriminate against a category of people in the United States of America. Voters have disenfranchised American citizens by denying them their constitutional civil right to marry. Marriage is a a legal right.

The California Supreme Court majority opinion did not affect religion. It stated that "no religion will be required to change its policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs."

The guarantee of equality exists to protect minorities from discrimination at the hands of a majority.

Keep mainlining the kool ai... (Below threshold)

Keep mainlining the kool aid powder, Matthew.

"The guarantee of equality exists to protect minorities from discrimination at the hands of a majority."

They want the word "marriage". They've already got civil unions, so there is no 'right' being trampled on.

They get "marriage", next thing you know, churches will be accused of 'hate speech', 'bigotry', 'homophobia' and anything else they can dream up.

One step at a time.

Oooh, JT, I think you are c... (Below threshold)

Oooh, JT, I think you are confusing the Church of Latter Day Saints with something else. They are no Quakers, and they'll protect their own when threatened far more vigorously and completely than most of the Christian faiths popular in our country. Their birth and growth was a very violent history. Beware engaging the wrath of the LDS.

We should all be outrage... (Below threshold)

We should all be outraged at the assault on democracy occuring in California. Whether you agree with gay marriage or disagree, there are right and wrong ways to deal with the legal implications. Seeking to overturn the democratic voice of the people through lawsuits, retribution and violence is profoundly dangerous for democracy and freedom.

I just wrote a blog entry this morning talking about this in the context of Prop. 8.

Dustin May, Oxygen Rich Environment

Willie, this is a subject t... (Below threshold)

Willie, this is a subject that you should probably refrain from commenting on. You will not find a single piece of data supporting your view of what "most Americans" think about homosexuality.

You're trying to shift the question back in time a few decades, to when people were discussing whether or not homosexuality was acceptable, rather than homosexual marriage. The former question has been answered, so please do not act like it hasn't. If you had gay friends, they would be offended by a slur like that.

Talk about mutation of marr... (Below threshold)

Talk about mutation of marriage. The Mormon church is against interracial marriage and has a significant group sex (polygamist) minority of old men who have pedophile tendencies and pry on young girls to bring into their harem. Talk about a twisted religion. In fact, Mormons after are NOT Christians. Most European countries adopted Christianity because it allowed them to continue drinking. Mormons with their polygamists, their alcohol abstention and their better than thou tendencies as truly are a CULT of the MUSLIM faith (they too believe in multiple underage wives and no alcohol). Why should the Muslim Mormons shove their pedophilic lifestyles down our throats. They are truly the domestic terrorists who are threatening our democratic traditions.

Who gave you the right Hypo... (Below threshold)

Who gave you the right Hypo-boy to come onto this blog and tell people what they may say here. Why, that would be like my saying to you, "STFU", only I'd be within my rights after your little usurpation of power.

Back under your rock!

Ons should remember that, w... (Below threshold)

Ons should remember that, when it comes to homosexuality, Willie once stated that he thought it would be a good idea to release the terrorists from Guantanamo onto San Francisco. That's his world view. Nice.

No fury like a gay's scorn.... (Below threshold)
Captain America:

No fury like a gay's scorn.

Raj,Your history o... (Below threshold)


Your history of the Mormon church needs a little help. The Mormon church is NOT against interracial marriage-it happens all the time, and yes, even in Temple marriages. The LDS church does NOT practice polygamy, and hasn't for over a hundred years. The LDS church by its name alone (The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter Day Saints) is christian, whether you want to believe it or not. Yes, the Mormons are human and many problems, but look at the Catholic priests. They have far more problems with pedophiles than the Mormon church.

I think you need to learn more about a religion before you attack it with such vile contempt. This issue is about marriage-a solemn sacred institution that one should not take lightly. The act of homosexuality is a sin. "Hate the sin, love the sinner." However, it does not mean we should accept the sin and give the sinners the green light to change what traditional marriage has been about-that is wrong.

Eliminate the 'married fili... (Below threshold)

Eliminate the 'married filing jointly' deduction and increase the 'dependent child' deduction, then I am in favor of Gay Marriage. both of these deductions were instituted to encourage people to produce more children to contribute to the base of this pyramid scheme of a society we have developed. That would take care of the childless couples and the gays who adopt. I suspect that marriage would no longer be that attractive to the gay community.

If you believe that the Mormon Church are a bunch of pacifists, google "mountain meadows massacre"

Burt,The Mountain ... (Below threshold)


The Mountain Meadows Massacre is a long story...granted it was a huge misunderstanding and wrong, but you have to understand it was not done maliciously. If you read it from an LDS perspective, you will understand just what happened.

The LDS have been (were) persecuted for many, many years, driven from state to state to state. They (we) are mostly good people who try to live the gospel, try to teach our children right from wrong, and try to live in a world that is going in the wrong direction, and is so evil. Satan and his angels are real and they are trying to destroy anything good. Homosexuality is one of those tools he uses to destroy the family unit.

Christians alike think homosexuality is a sin and should not be rewarded with marriage--a solemn, sacred bond--which was intended for man and woman ONLY.

There was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve...

the 2000 measure, which a l... (Below threshold)

the 2000 measure, which a lot of states had, was a proposition into law.

the interpretation of the state constitution of the ca state supreme court was that such a law was unconstitutional.

now prop 8 was a constitutional ammendment that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. It doesn't revise the constitution as previously there was no specific definition of marriage (there never has been a need to as it was always assumed).

what's almost hilarious is that gays and their supporters are calling anyone-including blacks and hispanics-who voted for prop 8 ignorant and bigoted.

Years ago on an Atlanta tal... (Below threshold)

Years ago on an Atlanta talk radio show was a black show host known as "Ralph from Ben Hill" (Ben Hill is a neighborhood). He continually enraged blacks by making fun of the race hustlers and poverty pimps. Of homosexuals Ralph would say: "You can't have sex in another man's intestines!". Normalizing deviancy has been the left's agenda for decades. The "new" morality of America is symbolized by Paris, Monica, Sex in the City, Desperate Housewives, Gay Parades, Queer Eye.... Bill Clinton should be consulted, since he knows what is is, and what isn't sex, including use of foreign objects like cigars.

I am a Christian. It is my belief that homosexual behaviour is a sin. I am a biologist. My information is that homosexual behaviour is a biologically dead-end aberration, and is contrary to the second imperative of life, which is to reproduce. Humans develop a variety of behaviours to cope with environment, some successful, some destructive to self and others. We live in an America where NAMBLA, gays, lesbians, transgendered, transexuals, drug users, gang bangers, race dividers, and corporate/government/special interest frauds expect decent American families to accept all their acts as normal, decent, and alternative. Some of these people are just sinners for what they do; others are also criminals, and they deserve prison time for their acts. I pray for them all; it helps clean the images from my brain.

JayTea,A good post... (Below threshold)


A good post as always, but I need to point out that "cross" and "crucifix" are not synonymous.

A cross is a symbolic representation of the instrument used to crucify Jesus Christ. The Crucifix is an icon consisting of a cross and a representation of the body of Jesus Christ.

I have homosexual friends w... (Below threshold)

I have homosexual friends who know my view but have the crazy notion that I am entitled to it. I have a few former drug addicts and alchohol addicts that I will not enable them either. Unlike Hyper, who feels this issue is settled (maybe in the great country of canada), it is long from being settled here.

Sexual deviancy is what it is. It sure does go against the natural order of things, even for the non faithful. So, I stand with the majority of humans and the animal kingdom. ww

WillieDid you want... (Below threshold)


Did you want your "homosexual friends" to be in San Francisco if you'd had your wish about terrorists being released there?

I always like it when a homophobe like you says i have "homosexual friends"]."

I disagree with you that it... (Below threshold)

I disagree with you that it would be a good thing for the country but I absolutely agree that if it is to happen, it should come out of the legislature, not out of the judiciary.

twolaneflash, is that a "Ra... (Below threshold)

twolaneflash, is that a "Ralph Bailey"?

in Bakersfield, CA there is a talk radio host called Ralph Bailey and he's a conservative black man.

since we're talking about l... (Below threshold)

since we're talking about law, in a legal context marriage isnt a religious issue at all. that basically leaves it as a legal contract between two people. they grant each other legal rights, and acquire a legal status concerning taxes and other legally regulated issues. any committed couple can legally satisfy the terms of that contract

beforehand, i used to think as most kids did that homosexuality wasnt natural and was an unnatural choice that gays made. well for adults its obviously not a choice. straights dont choose to be straight, and gays would never freely choose to undergo the stigmas and prejudices they endure. its more like a condition such as being left-handed, or maybe even like being dyslexic. it may not be the norm but its a natural thing, and if its a natural thing then it can hardly be considered a sin by reasoning religious types

Henry,I don't know... (Below threshold)


I don't know if it's the same Ralph, but if so, our loss is your gain. I always enjoyed Ralph on a late ride home, sticking it to the victim-for-profit crowd.

I have firsthand knowledge ... (Below threshold)

I have firsthand knowledge of this issue. I have a partner and see no reason why we cannot be afforded the same legal, CIVIL protections given to straight people. I do not want to force any church to marry us. But I would like to be able to not have to pay a lawyer $5000 to concoct any and every legal contract to afford us of protections typically granted by a civil marriage license. I don't care if you call it marriage or call it civil union. I want the protections and the benefits.

I will NEVER protest someone's right to disagree with me -- formally or within the privacy of their own heart. My own family does. But I hope most people would not lump all gays and lesbians into the same category of people doing the despicable acts we have seen on church door steps this week. Nor should anyone doubt that me or my partner pose a threat to their own marriage or their children. Personally, I don't quite get that argument. To me, divorce has done more damage to children than any same-sex marriage/civil union could or would. Yet, I don't see a clamouring against no-fault divorce or divorce in general in our society anymore.

Just my 2 cents. Rail away.

Marriage has meant many thi... (Below threshold)

Marriage has meant many things through many cultures through many centuries. It has been a political covenant between families of power (and still is in certain contemporary societies, even in ours), it can be a legal association between two or more people with definitions of power and subjugation ascribed to the participants, it can be defined to promote monogamy and commitment to a defined concept of family. I find all types described in the Bible. I'm not sure our society is quite ready for a Heinlein future definition of marriage.

, the real issue from my perspective is whether our society is ready to accept homosexual behavior or not. What ever you want to ascribe a committed union of same a same sex couple to be called, if you refuse to acknowledge such a union, you are forcing those that choose such an association to be figurative if not literal criminals, societal outcasts, and objects of hate and scorn.

Somehow that doesn't sound very Christian to me. Or is it?

J.Edgar Hoover was gay? Bas... (Below threshold)
Jeff Blogworthy:

J.Edgar Hoover was gay? Based on what, an Oliver Stone movie? How 'bout some facts to back up the gratuitous assertion.

Likewise Mccarthy.

Funny how the supposed champions of gayness love to use the same for character assassination of those they despise. That is where I believe the accusation takes root. It makes some people feel better to believe that the most strident moralists are closet homos.

hey jeff - get ready for th... (Below threshold)

hey jeff - get ready for this: there is some very solid basis for speculation that lincoln, abraham that is, was gay

books have been written about it and all that

but dont call it character assassination. it shouldnt matter if lincoln was gay... should it??

Johnson concludes ... (Below threshold)
Jeff Blogworthy:
Johnson concludes that Senator Joe McCarthy, notorious for his attacks on alleged Communists in government, was often pressured by his allies to denounce homosexuals in government, but he resisted and did not do so. [2] Using rumors collected by Drew Pearson one Nevada publisher wrote in 1952 that both McCarthy and his chief counsel, Roy Cohn, were homosexuals.[3] Washington Post editor Benjamin C. Bradlee said, "There was a lot of time spent investigating" these allegations, "although no one came close to proving it." No reputable McCarthy biographer has accepted it as probable.
Hey peobody - the key word ... (Below threshold)
Jeff Blogworthy:

Hey peobody - the key word is "speculation." I question the motives of the speculators. After all, if we can assert that some of the most beloved characters in history were homosexual (King David, for example) we can persuade ourselves that our own deviance is not so bad after all. It the simply the age old practice of tearing others down to build ourselves up.

the speculation is well fou... (Below threshold)

the speculation is well founded in all 3 cases weve mentioned. google away and you can read all about it from carefully documented sources

worldwide, a consistant 6% of men are surveyed as being gay so dont think all your heroes in history (please tell me j edgar isnt one of them) are into the ladies

and guess what, homosexuality isnt that bad for society after all. as tolerant as i am, i dont paticularly want to watch two guys kiss but there is nothing wrong with any of it. nothing. if there is a biblical god, it created gays and wont harbor the same prejudices

...homosexuality isnt th... (Below threshold)
Jeff Blogworthy:

...homosexuality isnt that bad for society after all.

Tell it to the Romans.

Obsession with sexuality is... (Below threshold)

Obsession with sexuality is a big problem. When sex becomes your God, as it has for many people by the hands of the media, you might as well be on the outs and making room for a revolution. Which is saying your fate will be at the mercy of the ones who influenced your obsession.

Obsession with sexuality... (Below threshold)

Obsession with sexuality is a big problem.

Reminds me of what Paglia said about gay activists, they forgot the primary function of human sex organs is pro-creation.

Why is it necessary to unite Yin-Yin or Yang-Yang when both are the same?

The only reason 'marriage' was created was to have a system united Yin with Yang, for without the Yin there is no Yang and vice versa.

No doubt Lawyers and Judges will come up with some sort of irrational laws so they can make more money out of their Divorce Courts.

Damn Lawyers why does their lust for greed have to be greater than upholding Justice?


Stop saying that Domestic P... (Below threshold)

Stop saying that Domestic Partnerships grants the same rights, so why do you need to be married? THEY DO NOT GRANT THE SAME RIGHTS - only a small subset, and only for the state itself, not for the Feds. This means that we get screwed twice -- once by the state and once by the Feds every tax season. I also love all the reverse tactics by religious folks to accuse Gays of acting like they have been for centuries. Typical blame-game, typical fear-mongering tactics to brainwashed Jesus followers. Try putting the book down, rinsing off your hateful religious programming, and try using your brain to look up facts instead of repeating what you've been told. Trying verifying before repeating your list of rediculous key phrase-based arguements that are meaningless. Saying things like "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," and "my straight marriage will be attacked! and those gays will infringe on my religious rights" do not help your credibility. And by the way, why do religious people believe that it's okay for them to jam their beliefs and way of life down everyone else's throats? But no one is allowed to express their opinions back? Frankly, your morally superior attitudes are more than suspect, they are downright frighting. Mindless religious zombies marching the earth to convert those who aren't already a zombie of their particular faith...






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy