Prop. 8 federal lawsuit begins; cue right-wing media hysteria
This week in a San Francisco Federal District Court, a legal odd couple will be on display. Attorney David Boies, who represented Al Gore before the U.S. Supreme Court in the infamous 2000 case of Bush v. Gore, and conservative attorney Ted Olson, who represented George W. Bush, are joining forces to overturn California's Proposition 8. It will be their contention that the initiative passed by voters in 2008 banning same-sex marriage in the Golden State violates the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the U.S. Constitution, singles out gays and lesbians for a disfavored legal status, and discriminates on the basis of gender and sexual orientation.
Regardless of which side prevails, experts agree the case is likely to be appealed all the way to the highest court in the land.
Cue right-wing media hysteria and homophobia.
Few other issues whip the conservative media chattering class into a frenzy like the equality of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Americans. This unprecedented federal legal challenge is unlikely to be any different.
With hardly an exception, the folks at Fox News have been party to one homophobic attack on the gay community after another -- oddly hypocritical behavior for a network that sponsored the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association's annual conference just a few short months ago.
The network's highest-rated host, Bill O'Reilly, has repeatedly attacked marriage equality, claiming that the simple act of two people in love making it official could open the door to people to marry "a turtle," "a goat," "a duck," or "a dolphin." This coming from a man who once famously quacked, "I think everybody's got to relax on all this gay stuff." Relax, indeed -- O'Reilly has even baselessly fearmongered that legal protections for LGBT people could, in fact, protect pedophiles. A dated, demonstrably false, and hateful charge to be sure.
He's hardly alone at the conservative cable outlet.
Fox News' conspiracy-theorist-in-chief Glenn Beck, playing with dolls to make his point, inexplicably argued that marriage equality could lead to "triad" marriages, and the factually challenged morning crew at Fox & Friends hammered home the same erroneous point. They also claimed that increased support for marriage equality in public polls was due not to softening attitudes on gays and lesbians by the American people, but to "being politically correct."
Then there's Sean Hannity who once allowed right-wing pundit Ann Coulter to go unchallenged on his nationally syndicated radio program when she declared, "I don't think there's anything offensive about any variation of faggy, faggotry, faggot, fag."
Radio host Rush Limbaugh, despite having been married three times, is a steadfast defender of what the right calls "traditional marriage." El Rushbo once compared the Iowa Supreme Court decision granting marriage equality to "the Soviets," and while discussing President Obama and the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, he has routinely littered his screeds with juvenile anti-LGBT innuendo.
There is perhaps no voice more homophobic in the media today than that of Michael Savage (née Weiner), the Number 3 radio host in America, who was fired by MSNBC in 2003 for describing a caller as a "sodomite" and telling him to "get AIDS and die." Savage also lost his contract with Creative Artists Agency (two days after the exclusive talent firm announced it had signed him) in the wake of a rant over singer Melissa Etheridge in which he declared, "I don't like a woman married to a woman. It makes me want to puke. ... I want to vomit when I hear it. I think it's child abuse." For Savage, these comments are par for the course, all part of his almost-daily homophobic hate speech.
It's no better online, where writers for WorldNetDaily have endorsed a proposed Uganda law that would permit the death penalty simply for being gay and Townhall.com has led a perplexing anti-gay which hunt -- the later being a pet cause of a man who once called a judge a "crooked, slimy Jew, who has a history of lying and thieving common to members of his race."
The list could go on ad infinitum, and perhaps that is the point. Without fail, conservatives in the media will savagely attack the LGBT community whenever given the opening, and this is just such an opening.
With this week's federal case to decide the constitutionality of Proposition 8 already garnering worldwide media attention, the mainstream press will have ample opportunity to counter the malicious, hateful rhetoric spewed by right-wing outlets and personalities big and small with a healthy dose of reality-based journalism.
Should they fail in that endeavor, it will not be forgotten.
Karl Frisch is a senior fellow at Media Matters for America, a progressive media watchdog, research, and information center based in Washington, D.C. Frisch also contributes to County Fair, a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the web as well as original commentary. You can follow him on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube or sign up to receive his columns by email.




















The LGBT community have as much a right as those of us in the hetro community to be as happy or as miserable as everyone else!
Besides, we allow people on death row to marry... so I don't get why religious fanatics are all upset about?
What "we have always done" is irrelevant, they way YOU use it. Because WHAT WE HAVE ALWAYS DONE is EVOLVE. WHAT WE HAVE ALWAYS DONE is to correct the mistakes of the past. WHAT WE HAVE ALWAYS DONE is to re-write the laws that an ever changing society new deems unjust. And WHAT WE HAVE ALWAYS DONE is to fight for the freedom and the equality of all.
You think it's icky. So you're making a weak-@$$ argument against it. Period. You provide no GOOD REASONS not to grant them a right that takes NOTHING away from ANYONE else, nor do you show how the currently policy is NOT discriminatory.
Marriage is nothing more than a LEGAL CONTRACT. And I defy you to find any other examples of legal contracts that can eneter into with a woman, but not with a man. Name ONE that legal with one gender, but illegal with another.
--------------------------------------------------
BTW... At one point in the not too distant past, "WHAT WE HAD ALWAYS DONE" was to deny women the right to enter MOST legal contracts, vote, own land, start a business, etc... Marrying a woman is the only prohibition that now remains. Get over it.
There is nothing in the constitution giving the right for anyone to get married. Just like there isn’t a right to an abortion anywhere in the constitution. That wont stop the courts for finding some way to say there is. There will never be another amendment to the constitution. It is much easier to get it amended through the courts.
"Goats can't consent"
Dave, could you reconcile these two quotes for me, unless you're attempting to make the point that the people who believe the "goat" thing are idiots who don't know anything about the laws of this country, which they pretend to believe in?
Marriage is a religious institution and I feel that the government should be in the business of recognizing religious situations. I don't see governments basing right to vote on confirmation or bar and bat mitzvah.
Same sex couples should receive the same civil and government equalities as heterosexual couples. This issue has been gone about the wrong way. Instead of legalizing same sex marriage we should be working to outlaw "opposite marriage". Let marriage be what it is, a religious institution that is should not be recognized by the government.
No, I wasn't dumped by a fiancee...can you tell?
How about we pass a Constitutional amendment that allows same-sex marriage, re-affirms heterosexual couples' fundamental right to marriage on a federal level, and expressly prohibits pederast and bestial-based marriages? Hell, we can even throw polygamy in there if it's such a huge deal (personally I've never understood why it is). It will, in fact, close those holes off entirely and make them very difficult to overturn later, even in the face of the imagined post-apocalyptic scenario that will occur should gay folks get the right to settle down. So...no slippery slope, right?
More on topic, I'm very excited about this case. It will set the stage for the next 20 or so years of the sexual liberation fight.
------------------------------------------------------
...If you're against it, you have NO BRAIN.
Government isn't involved in marriage. Government only becomes involved when a legal decision has to be made about the CONTRACT that marriage entails.
Guess you've never been divorced.
In some cases, in order to defend the rights of a minority, the courts must get involved. In 1958, 96% of white Americans opposed interracial marriage. But the ban still had to be overturned. Because it was wrong, even if the majority of the people supported that ban.
I don't lose too much sleep over the same-sex marriage issue. It's frustrating sometimes when there's a setback, but no noble struggle is without obstacles. And I know it will happen one day, because that's how the universe works. It bends towards justice, as a smart guy once put it. Victory is inevitable. I have total confidence that one day my kids or grandkids are going to look back on this with the same befuddlement I have when I try to envision how things were when my parents were growing up--when blacks and whites couldn't marry, or even use the same water fountain. It always seems so incredibly bizarre to me; it's hard to imagine that America was ever like that, much less just a few decades ago. We will one day look back on this with the same sense of shame and confusion we have when we recall the days of a ban on interracial marriage.
It gives me no small joy to think of all these bigoted right wingers marching arm-and-arm against the flow of history.
One of these days our children and grandchildren will be able to look at them with the same sense of pity that we feel for the politicians who opposed racial integration in the last Century.
Riiiiiight.........
So, no, it's not "kinda like" the Mormon Church using their own funds to lobby for the passage of Prop 8.
Stay tuned! This may be the best quote of 2010, but it's only Jan 12th.
And I love how you provided examples of them doing what you accused them of - NOT.
Why didn't you provide a single example? Because there ARE no examples, that's why.
This site doesn't advocate for any political party or candidate or any laws or proposed laws. Either you don't know what you're talking about or you're lying.
Our system political system was created to provide several checks on mob rule, legislatures, executives, and judiciaries.
"Although that does seem the only way liberals get their way" -- yeah, liberals haven't had their way for a while. That's why we have the booming economy, the historic job creation, the balanced budget...
...or we used to have those things, until liberals stopped getting their way.
The fact that the people of CA voted against gay marriage is not the issue here. The issue is the constitutionality of the vote. Did the voters have the right to take away constitutionally guaranteed rights of a group of citizens is the question. The answer is no, if the constitution is properly interpreted. NO. To allow one group of citizens to take away the rights of another group of citizens opens the door to more abuses of power. It is my position that some people, given one mile, will then demand more. And besides, at this point in time, which of these people who are railing against LGBTQ persons have children who may grow up to become members of this group? Be very careful what you wish for.
I know firsthand how difficult it is to live in a country that you love and be denied your constitutional rights because I grew up in America under segregation.
The voters did not take away a right from anyone. The voters were promoting a unique relationship that is vital to societies continuation. A man and a woman joining together to have and raise children. Everyone has the right to this institution. If you don't want to enter into it that fine. No other relationship matters to the continuation of people so it doesn't need a special legal status.
You sure about that? Before prop 8 LBGT were allowed to marry. After prop 8 they weren't.
Seems something was taken way.
The voters were promoting a unique relationship that is vital to societies continuation
OK, then all pregnancies out of wedlock must be aborted, using your warped logic.
If your post was sarcasm (don't recognize your login name), then disregard this post. If not, then you have my pity.
-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)
Just thought it might make ya think a little, Justken.
They should ask themselves which right could be taken from them, since some people can't relate unless it is all about them. Which right will be taken next, and by whom? This is not something that can be allowed to stand.
"We are so concerned to flatter the majority that we lose sight of how very often it is necessary, in order to preserve freedom for the minority, let alone for the individual, to face that majority down." - William F. Buckley Jr.
"Unlimited majority rule is an instance of the principle of tyranny." - Ayn Rand
"[M]ajority rule is for the sake of securing rights possessed equally by the majority and the minority. Whether anyone’s rights to life, liberty, or property ought to be protected is not itself supposed to be subject to majority rule." - Timothy Sandefur
See, even conservatives used to believe in the rule of law to set things straight when people are denied a fundamental right.
A little condescending maybe, but if it were your life that was being afftected by this you might be a little more stridant in your demand for justice in this matter.
I have been with my partner for six years now and there is little hope at this time that our state will ever permit us to marry (although I should add the chance of it voting an anti-same-sex-marriage amendment is also fairly remote).
It is not just the legal obligations that marriage permits a couple it is the recognition by the state that you are equal to your neighbors.
I will concede that I am not too sure this Bois-Olsen lawsuit will be effective or will help the process that much but the status quo must be constantly challenged in this case.
The California legislature TWICE passed legislation that would legalize gay marriage. Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger vetoed both bills.
It was the state courts that ruled that it was unconstitutional to deny equal protection under the law to everyone with regards to marriage. Proposition 8 was put on the ballot to change the constitution to limit marriage to one man and one woman. It passed with about 52% of the vote.
Same sex marriages obtained up until the point that Prop. 8 took effect were ruled to stand, however, creating kind of a double status for gay marriage in California.
Point is, there are many types of households beyond straight or gay couples, and they deserve some recognition too--but not turtles.
I think if we use "consent" and the ability to get uncoerced consent from the parties involved we can see an outline of what kinds of relationships may be considered for marriage and kinds must be of a different kind of legal arrangement.
1. Underage persons cannot give consent.
2. Close relatives cannot give consent to marry each other because coersion is very likely in these relationships...even after the parties are adults.
3. Animals and inanimate objects cannot give consent and therefore Bill-O will not see people wedding ducks.
4. This criteria does not eliminate one of the Right's bogeymen against same sex marriage which is polygamy, though.
Either way, I sure hope this will finally be the win we've been waiting for. The constitution is being ignored in so many cases, overturning Prop 8 isn't just a victory for the LGBT-community, equal rights, secularism etc, but for the Constitution as well.
The relationship between a man and a woman are unique. It is the only way for humans to procreate. It takes 20+ years to raise a child. There is a huge state interest in trying to have a special status for this one type of relationship for these reasons.
The state should endorse and encourage this particular relationship because it is of paramount importance to society. No other arrangement comes close. No other bond damages us as much when it fail. The country needs a special legal institution for encouraging a man and woman to live together and raise children. It is called marriage.
It's also called a marriage when Britney Spears gets plastered in Vegas and marries her driver (or whomever that guy was.)
And guess what: In a few states in this country, when two men or two women take vows to be married, that too is called a marriage.
It's not exactly a big deal when married couples can't reproduce to society considering that people have been worrying about overpopulation for a loooooong time. See Ebenzer Scrooge and the play Urinetown for examples. I don't exactly see the special status thing his way because I don't quite get it myself. How is marriage special if most adults get married and why would it need to be given a specialty status? And he says I don't think that the state should be encouraging marriage. The [b]civil[b] institution of marriage should exist for all the nice goodies. And it should exist for the LGBT people as well.
But yes, it IS bad when marriage fails when there is a child involved, especially a young one and society, not the gov, has a vested interest in making sure that children have at least a stable familial setting. Any people of divorced or broken families ought to know this as I do. Which is why when a gay couple adopts and only one parent has recognized guardianship, problems are MORE likely to arise. Suppose the guardian develops a drinking/drug/vice etc problem? That kid gets put into the foster system if there is no grandparents or such. No legal benefits are reaped by the partner. And perhaps since gays CANNOT reproduce, intentionally or otherwise, seeking out children instead of having kids forced upon them may actually mean they will be better parents from the start BECAUSE they wanted kids
And, exactly, it's not a big deal when married couples don't reproduce. That's why the whole, "gay people can't make babies" argument doesn't hold water.
"I don't think that the state should be encouraging marriage. The civil institution of marriage should exist for all the nice goodies. And it should exist for the LGBT people as well."
Interesting. It is a strange but true fact that as countries get richer they have fewer children. Countries like France, Italy and Japan are below replacement birthrates. Do we want those countries to disappear?
Even with all the benefits that marriage gives, it is still tremendously expensive to have kids. It helps but doesn't equal out the costs and for people who make the same amount of money there is even a tax penalty. Go figure.
Just one person, is that to high of a bar to ask for?
I asked a christian bigot in one of my other venues to present secular arguments against gay marriage. This is seriously what he came up with:
1. Gays are icky according to the unwashed masses.
2. Gays have more violent relationships.
3. Marriage is not a civil right.
1 and 2 are irrelevant. If we disbarred people from having marriage on the basis of a potential for abuse within the marriage, then 'traditional' marriage would take a huge hit in numbers as well. On this he refused to admit to this fact and how the law has to apply to everyone equally. If you disbar gays from having marriage on the potential for abuse, then you must do the same for heterosexual marriages.
3 is even more funny since there is already plenty of precedent. In Loving V. Virginia it was established by the supreme court in a ruling 7-0 in favor that interracial marriage was legal and that marriage IS a civil right.
A man and woman who live together to have and raise children. Society must reproduce to continue so this relationship gets special status.
If it means two people who love each other and want to live together, why does that state care? There is no reason to promote it.
Once again, you seem to forget that most straight marriages in this country do not result in children.
So your argument does not make sense.
Procreation IS NOT THE criteria for marriage in the United States.
Society wants these children raised by their parents, therefore marriage. Otherwise why have it.
Really care to provide anything to back this statement up because I dont know of ANY married people that do not have kids, besides the few who physically cant.
I personally could give a Rodent Rectum who marries I think government should get out of marriage altogether.
I'm not holding my breath.
~
The last I checked most denominations will marry divocees. I think that is recognition of divorce by the those denominations.
Maybe the civil portion of marriage, like divorce should be handled by the governments and let the churches do the religious stuff.
The government doesn’t need to be in Marriage at all.
The Catholic Church will not marry divorcees.
Who should be be involved with Marriage if the goverment confers marriage based on marriage status? The churches? Elvis impersonators?
No automatic inheritance...
No hospital visitaion...
No end of life decision making...
No joint property...
No Social Security benefits...
etc....
All of the above can be handled by contract law without the government having to sanction any kind of marriage.
You don’t need to be married for any of this
No automatic inheritance...
No hospital visitaion...
No end of life decision making...
No joint property...
The only issue that would be difficult would be social security. This could be fixed by simply have people register who they want their social security benefactor to be. While the majority of American are against gay marriage they are for equal rights for gay couples. They just don’t want it called marriage. I just think a lot of this BS is simply over the word marriage. If you get equal rights why do you care what it’s called? Personally I don’t give a crap who gets married I think it’s a distraction for some of the more pressing issues facing us today.
Once again, does not the state have a valid purpose in encouraging a man and a woman to come together in a permanent relationship to have and raise children? If you believe the answer is no, fine. But I think the answer is yes it does.
It does not matter to the state if boy friends and girl friends break up or boy and boy or girl and girl. I also agree that divorce is a bad thing. People have argued about it for years about how easy should it be or not be to get a divorce. But none of this negates my original point. If I am wrong, show me where.
"Once again, does not the state have a valid purpose in encouraging a man and a woman to come together in a permanent relationship to have and raise children?"
to
"...does not the state have a valid purpose in encouraging a committed couple to come together in a permanent relationship to have and raise children?"
I'd agree with you 100%. But to try and reason that government should restrict it a definition of a man and a woman is ludicrous. That's giving tacit approval to the BS theories being thrown around about how homosexual couples make unfit parents. If a child is raised in a loving, respectful home, what does it matter if the parents are a man and a woman or two men or two women?
(Corporations=maximize incoming money, decrease outgoing money) + (Corporate media=maximize markets for advertising dollars) + (Unbiased fact, critical analysis of issues, etc=loss of viewers with preconceived views and notions on subject matter) = loss of potential money. Until the truth and honest debate/facts become the most profitable thing on the newsroom floor, newstations cannot take things to a serious level without being biased. CNN is the only arguable exception to this.
THIS is why your local news SUCKS. They pander to as wide an audience as they can. Anything which may alienate any viewers is off limits for seriousness and facts which support side A and diminish side B
And I'm sure you can link to any instance of Fox telling the truth?...
/sarcasm