Prop 8 Trial is About "Putting Christianity on Trial"
I guess it isn't about equality, it is about putting Christianity on trial...
Right Wing Watch has this Bill Donohue rant:
Yesterday, the judge allowed Boies and Olsen to submit e-mails they obtained between the director of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the bishops. Allowing such communication in a trial is unusual enough, but the purpose was even more invidious: to show that Catholics played a major role in passing Proposition 8. The lawyers did the same thing to Mormons, offering more e-mail “proof” of their involvement.
...
Their goal is not to contest the First Amendment rights of Catholics and others—their goal is to put religion on trial. What they are saying is that religious-based reasons for rejecting gay marriage are irrational, and thus do not meet the test of promoting a legitimate state interest. That is why they have trotted out professors like Gary Segura of Stanford and George Chauncey of Yale to testify to the irrationality of the pro-Proposition 8 side. Chauncey was even given the opportunity to read from a Vatican document that rejects homosexual marriage.
Society cannot exist without families; families cannot exist without reproduction; reproduction cannot exist without a sexual union between a man and a woman; and every society in the history of the world has created an institution called marriage to provide for this end. In short, it is nothing but irrational to challenge such a timeless verity. No matter, what is going on in the courtroom smacks of an animus against religion.
I really have never understood the victim role the religious right plays on a regular basis. It seems rather apparent they attack relentlessly and attempt to impose their radical views on everyone without regard for individual freedom. Yet here they are again with a nice little talking point, "Prop 8 is about putting religion on trial."
If your argument for denying two humans the right to marry is based on the predication that it spotlights the flaws in your own doctrine; it is clear you have no argument.
Andrew Sullivan has more about this "Big Lie."
I am Frank Chow and I approved this message.
Right Wing Watch has this Bill Donohue rant:
Yesterday, the judge allowed Boies and Olsen to submit e-mails they obtained between the director of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the bishops. Allowing such communication in a trial is unusual enough, but the purpose was even more invidious: to show that Catholics played a major role in passing Proposition 8. The lawyers did the same thing to Mormons, offering more e-mail “proof” of their involvement.
...
Their goal is not to contest the First Amendment rights of Catholics and others—their goal is to put religion on trial. What they are saying is that religious-based reasons for rejecting gay marriage are irrational, and thus do not meet the test of promoting a legitimate state interest. That is why they have trotted out professors like Gary Segura of Stanford and George Chauncey of Yale to testify to the irrationality of the pro-Proposition 8 side. Chauncey was even given the opportunity to read from a Vatican document that rejects homosexual marriage.
Society cannot exist without families; families cannot exist without reproduction; reproduction cannot exist without a sexual union between a man and a woman; and every society in the history of the world has created an institution called marriage to provide for this end. In short, it is nothing but irrational to challenge such a timeless verity. No matter, what is going on in the courtroom smacks of an animus against religion.
I really have never understood the victim role the religious right plays on a regular basis. It seems rather apparent they attack relentlessly and attempt to impose their radical views on everyone without regard for individual freedom. Yet here they are again with a nice little talking point, "Prop 8 is about putting religion on trial."
If your argument for denying two humans the right to marry is based on the predication that it spotlights the flaws in your own doctrine; it is clear you have no argument.
Andrew Sullivan has more about this "Big Lie."
I am Frank Chow and I approved this message.
Comments
Being opposed to gay marriage isn't necessarily "radical" IMHO. As far as I know, the bishops and Mormons are not advocating anything other than legal means to resist gay marriage being made legal.
I personally don't care if gays get married or not -- I certainly don't feel threatened by gay marriage -- but being opposed to gay marriage wouldn't make someone a radical in my eyes. Bishops are pretty much pulling the Catholic doctrine line on this issue, although there is of course room for debate about multicultual societies, church-state separation, bishops aren't married, etc.
To be clear, I'm not saying I agree with the bishops' methods (even if they are legal they look shady as hell), but I can't say I'm surprised that a religious organization with strict rules on marriage might feel threatened by civil institutions granting marital status to unions that the religious organization does not recognize. And I don't think this makes them radicals any more than it makes African-American Christians who oppose gay marriage radicals.
The Catholic League and Bill Donohue's folks are supposed to defend Catholics from defamation, as trashing Catholicism and mocking our rites and rituals has become commonplace. I think Donohue and O'Reilly play the victim card way too often, which means it's become a "boy who cried wolf" situation.
It's also hard to get sympathy for being treated poorly when you're seen to be denying another group civil rights.
Whether or not anyone -- gay or straight -- has the "right" to marriage is a whole other discussion.