Question

[independentchristian]

Who are these so-called judges that were "legislating from the bench" in the election season "gay marriage" circus?

I mentioned this the other day.

Bill Clinton was president for 8 years. You didn't have all of the hoopla of "pre-election gay marriage," until Bush got into office. It would seem to me that people who wanted to vote "against gay marriage" would vote "against Bush," since it didn't start happening until he got into office.

I think it was a stunt put on by rightwingers to run ignorant voters into Bush's circle.

I never saw the "judges" interviewed that supposedly "legislated" from the bench. Does anyone know their names?

Before the election, "gay marriage, gay marriage, gay marriage, marriage amendment, marriage amendment, marriage amendment." After the election, nothing. No more gays getting married on television. No more judges "legislating" from the bench. No more marriage amendment (Bush said he will not "pursue" one, the beginning of January).

Do you think it was a stunt that was allowed to take place by Rove? That they got these so-called "liberal judges" to make the rulings that they did to allow it to happen to influence ignorant voters? Do you think these judges could have been rightwingers who intentionally did this just to create the circus that they did for the benefit of Bush's re-election?

I think there needs to be an investigation into this.

[Dookus]

1. well

judges can't just wake up one day and decide to issue a ruling. Some of these cases had been winding through the courts for many years.

Gay marriage is not a right-wing conspiracy.

[independentchristian]

2. So they decided to wait to rule on them during the election season?

All of those different states all of a sudden decided to rule on them during Bush's re-election season?

Yeah, right.

They just came up for a decision then.

It's all just a "coincidence", right?

[Dookus]

4. this would all depend on

how you define an "election season".

If it's a couple years long, as you seem to believe, then I guess yeah, it is a coincidence.

[independentchristian]

7. I define election season as January 2003 to November 2004

You mean to tell me there were no cases in court before then?

All of those cases just happened to be ruled on in late 2003 and 2004?

No one can make me believe that crap.

I'm not a coincidence theorist.

[Dookus]

8. OK

I can't make you believe that crap.

But do a little research. Perhaps you want to look into Hawaii's experience with the subject for a starter.

[readmoreoften]

5. Gay marriages coincided with the Supreme Court

overturning sodomy laws and a few other rulings. The timing actually did happen to be a coincidence, but I do believe Rove exploited that coincidence to the hilt.

[TOOLZ]

3. It was a funny cycle...

Many gay right activists who had been fighting for years had to shrug at the end of last year and acknowledge that just getting civil unions recognized seemed so daunting for so long, so there was progress.

I think Rove just exploited a growing movement on both sides. I'm still mad at the Mayor of San Francisco for playing into his hands, declaring City Hall would perform gay marriages, getting national attention and provoking the fundamentalists in an election year, for marriages that would clearly ultimately be ruled invalid anyway. It set so much in motion, and ultimately will deprive gays and lesbians of legal marriage for much longer. That was more akin to the "activist judges" allegation the right was spewing, such horseshit. Judges in MA simply ruled that there's no damn difference between civil unions and marriage, so stop fucking around and mincing words, and call it what it is.

[Dookus]

6. and 50 years from now

Gavin Newsom will be seen as a prescient hero.

There is never a wrong time to do the right thing.

[TOOLZ]

9. Believe me, in just a few years...

..this will seem like making black people sit in the back of the bus. But the backlash this caused created actual legislation in numerous states that will be much harder to reverse.

No, there's never a wrong time, to do the right thing. But there are far more opportune times for much better strategy.

[Dookus]

10. I truly do understand

the worry that people have about the backlash, but I think people overestimate it.

Yes, the Republicans made hay out of it. I never expected anything less. But the Democrats failed to stand united on the right side of the issue, and that hurt us, too. There *IS* a strong case to be made for extending equal rights to gay people, and the Dems were too chicken to do it. They could've convinced some people in the middle, and spurred some on the left to get out and vote if they'd handled it well.

Newsom did the right thing. The MA Supreme Court did the right thing. Those who fight against them will soon be treated the way we treat the southern racists of the 50s and 60s.