The Pink Lady's Coverage of 9th Circuit Court Decision

The Los Angeles Times, ever obsessed with one of their favorite causes – neutering marriage – had at least three print articles in reaction to yesterday's news on the California Marriage Amendment, voted in as Proposition 8. The headline of this article by Maura Dolan and Carol J. Williams is "Divided Court Rejects Proposition 8". My headline: "Most Overturned Federal Appeals Court Rejects State Constitutional Amendment." This article repeatedly uses the erroneous "gay marriage" and "ban" wording.

A federal appeals court has declared California's 2008 voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, concluding that the prohibition served no purpose other than to "lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians."

Got that? The bride+groom requirement in marriage has been nothing more but a hateful worldwide conspiracy carried out since the dawn of humanity by all governments, people groups and every major religion as well as atheists to make homosexual people feel bad. It was only a little over ten years ago that this conspiracy was first exposed. Not even prominent civil rights activists in history, not any of the great liberal SCOTUS Justices noticed this conspiracy, or were somehow prevented from speaking out about it.

The 2-1 ruling by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals was narrowly written to limit its scope to California's borders and possibly even avoid review by the U.S. Supreme Court, legal experts said.

Once the federal courts get involved in an internal state matter, I don't see how the highest federal court could be prevented from getting involved. Why shouldn’t SCOTUS get involved – precedent? It's not in their power? HA! Those would be hilarious reasons, given what Walker and then the Appeals court have done.

Nonetheless, gay-rights advocates hailed Tuesday's decision as historic, while supporters of Proposition 8 immediately vowed to appeal.

Not all "gay rights" advocates are marriage neutering advocates. And "supporters of Proposition 8" are defenders of the state constitution.

Instead of expanding the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians, the court based its decision on a 1996 U.S. Supreme Court precedent that said a majority may not take away a minority's rights without legitimate reasons.

True rights are not invented by year 2008 state court decisions. There are legitimate reasons to reserve state marriage licenses for bride+groom unions, due to the fact that they can (and usually do) naturally create new citizens and unite both sexes that comprise all of society.

If a Native American tribe (historically oppressed minority) demanded some sort of official state designation that a bacon-and-shrimp dish was "kosher", this court, if being consistent, would have to agree, especially if a lower court said so and then voters later said "no". After all, how does calling such a dish kosher hurt anyone else's kosher? Marriage is even more important that dietary customs.

"Proposition 8 operates with no apparent purpose but to impose on gays and lesbians, through the public law, a majority's private disapproval of them and their relationships," Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote for the court.

One need not disapprove of homosexual people, relationships, or behavior to believe marriage licenses should be reserved for bride+groom unions. The state issues both driver's licenses and state identification cards that are not driver's licenses. Does this show disapproval for religious minorities who don’t use motor vehicles?

"It's no surprise that the 9th Circuit's decision is completely out of step with every other federal appellate and Supreme Court decision in American history on the subject of marriage," said Andy Pugno, a lawyer for ProtectMarriage.

But you see, all of those courts were part of the conspiracy.

But other lawyers and legal scholars said the 9th Circuit might have the final word on Proposition 8 because the ruling was so pointedly limited to California, a state where voters stripped a minority of a right that already existed and where the usual justifications for a same-sex marriage ban, responsible parenting and procreation, are undercut by domestic partner laws.

Like I've said, marriage defenders now must oppose any legal union such as domestic partnerships or civil unions if the law will treat them like marriage, because they are used as Trojan Horses. Many people who have, or would have supported such laws to make life easier for people who do not want to marry (unite with someone of the opposite sex) now can't because of what we now know courts will do, in addition to whatever concerns we had about the social effect on marriage.

In the opinion, Reinhardt drew close parallels between Proposition 8 and a 1992 Colorado initiative that barred the government from passing laws to protect the civil rights of gays and lesbians. The U.S. Supreme Court, in a decision written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, struck down Colorado's law in 1996.

Calling Proposition 8 "remarkably similar" to the Colorado initiative, the 9th Circuit said both measures singled out one class of people and removed an existing right without serving any reasonable purpose.

I'd like to know where, in the text of Proposition 8, one class of people was singled out.

"It is implausible to think that denying two men or two women the right to call themselves married could somehow bolster the stability of families headed by one man and one woman," the court said.

That statement is either intentionally deceptive or terribly stupid. It is astounding that a federal court could make such a statement. Who is denied the right to call themselves married? Brideless and groomless couples have been doing that for what, decades now? They can still do that, as can anyone else.

Also, counterfeits devalue the authentic – the state should not be giving counterfeit marriages marriage licenses. For the state to call things that aren't marriage marriage devalues marriage. Furthermore, the state saying that a brideless or groomless pairing is marriage has many other effects, including the inescapable indication that children are irrelevant to marriage. If children are irrelevant to marriage, the desire to have children together or already having or expecting children together no longer carries any social weight on whether or not to marry, or if married, whether or not to divorce. Whatever the institution of marriage is about, it can't be about children, so whether or not they have children together is irrelevant to whether or not a man should divorce his wife.

Joining Reinhardt, a liberal lion of the 9th Circuit appointed by former President Jimmy Carter, was Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, a former Arizona federal prosecutor and an appointee of former President Bill Clinton.

Judge N. Randy Smith, a conservative appointed by President George W. Bush, dissented, arguing that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples could be justified on the grounds that [man-woman] couples are the only couples who can procreate naturally

He's right.

Scott Gold, Jessica Garrison and Maria L. La Ganga have an article headlined "California Was Ahead of the Curve on Gay Marriage - For a While".

It is one thing for pundits to call it "gay marriage" but sloppy for objective journalists. But then "ahead of the curve" isn't objective anyway.

California's early granting of same-sex marriage licenses led to the backlash culminating in Proposition 8, banning the unions. Meanwhile, other states have passed the state by on the rights issue.

Definitely not objective. "Banning the unions" is also sloppy. The only thing banned would be the banning of a local official from issuing a marriage license to a brideles or groomless couples, if that official wanted to do such a thing.

How could the people have reacted to what the state's Supreme Court was going to rule before the court issued a ruling? The fact is, Proposition 8 was on the way to the ballot before the court decision. Hey, what's incorrect language and bad retelling of history when you're a major newspaper? There are more important things than doing a job well, like assisting in the dismantling the foundation of civilization.

I still haven't gotten to the actual text of the article. It starts out painting a positive picture of people knowingly thumbing their nose at the law, including people who were sworn to uphold that law, until all of the fluffy love was stomped on by meanies. No bias here, right? Certainly not with yet another article that uses the phrase "gay marriage ban".

Over time, momentum seemed to pass California by. More than a dozen jurisdictions now recognize gay marriage, civil unions or domestic partnerships that convey similar rights; and in the last two years, some polls have begun showing that a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage rights.

I know they haven't been polled like this. And uh, California has domestic partnerships, too. Clever how they include or exclude domestic partnerships and civil unions, praise or denounce them selectively, in contradictory fashion, pulling a bait & switch, depending on what fits their agenda.

Gaffney and his partner of 25 years, John Lewis, carried a sign that said: "Our Silver Anniversary Wish: The Freedom to Marry for All."

Good news! Everyone already has that freedom.

They were one of the first same-sex couples married in 2004 in San Francisco; when the courts dissolved that marriage, they married again in 2008 - one of the 18,000 same-sex couples who legally married that year in California before voters passed Proposition 8.

Wait, how could that be? If they're having their silver anniversary – which means 25-years of marriage – doesn't that mean they got married 25 years ago? So "gay marriage" was not outlawed or banned or prevented back then, in 2008, or now.

Lawyers who fought on behalf of the gay community acknowledged that their campaign to overturn Proposition 8 has been designed from the start to win not only a battle in court but a battle for hearts and minds.

There are homosexual people, some of them outspoken, that do not want marriage licenses neutered or do not think there should be any marriage licenses at all. So clearly, the lawyers are not representing "the gay community", they are representing couples who want a marriage license without a bride or without a groom.

"The more you talk to people, the more they listen, the more they realize this is right, and this is inevitable," said Theodore Olson, former President George W. Bush's solicitor general and one of two lead attorneys who fought the Proposition 8 case on behalf of [marriage neutering] advocates.

People nod because they want you to shut up and go away. Even little kids know there is a difference between boys and girls and so most adults think someone who says there's no difference between marriage and a brideless or groomless pairing is spouting insanity along the levels of how nourishing an ash tray is because someone ate one. When confronted with insane babble, the best thing most people can think to do is politely nod. Some of those nodders think the sideshow will go away if they roll over and give up on marriage, but it will only make things worse if marriage is neutered for the entire country.

Ivy Bottini, who admitted that until thirty years ago, she didn't think two women could form a marriage (guess she was a bigot?) said:

"For many people, it says: 'I am a human being. I am a good person and I love this person. And we deserve to be together.' "

All you unmarried people aren't human beings, you see. You aren’t good, and you don't deserve to be with anyone. Only people with a California state marriage license are human beings, good, and deserve to have a relationship. That's what the marriage neutering advocates are saying. Who is being limited in their thinking? Say, what do mental health professionals call an adult whose self-worth depends entirely on their relationship with another ordinary adult, or more so, depends on what other people think about that relationship?

Finally, Kathleen Hennessey has the reaction from "The White House" and the GOP candidates. I wasn't aware buildings had reactions.

"[Obama] has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples," [White House press secretary Jay] Carney added.

The California Marriage Amendment doesn't do that, so he supports it, right?

Romney added that he would, as president, "appoint judges who interpret the Constitution as it is written and not according to their own politics and prejudices."

Including this quote implies that the writer and editor know that judges ruling to neuter marriage are ruling according to their own politics and prejudices, not the Constitution.

Regarding the title of this entry – I’m thinking that if the New York Times is the Old Gray Lady, the Los Angeles Times could be the Pink Transgendered Lady. Elections have consequences.