More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors

Dear supporters of Proposition 8,

Please do not take my words as gloating but rather as a clear and concise analysis of why you may be feeling dejected now over the overturning of Proposition 8.

In 2008, when you won, many of you stood with your arms raised in defiance of the bitter tears you caused in the lgbt community.

What a difference two years makes indeed.

But let me explain to you why you lost today. It's not complicated, but rather simple.

Your side lost because you lied.

Oh I know that folks on your side will whine about "activist judges who make laws rather than interpret them," but let's be real here.

Your entire narrative has been a lie from the beginning.

Folks on your side, such as Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage, the Family Research Council, and the rest of the pseudo defenders of morality will probably whine about how you all have been unfairly labeled as "bigots." And I am sure that they will point out that every time there has been a public vote on marriage equality, the lgbt community has always lost.

But they will conveniently omit how these victories were attained. You won't hear about how they invoked images of gay boogeymen molesting children in false ads, nor will they admit to telling lies about children supposedly being taught about gay sex.

You won't hear them admit to exploiting people's unconscious fears and ignorance of the lgbt community in order to spin outrageous scenarios of what could happen should lgbts be allowed to marry.

And don't be surprised by this. Those like Gallagher will never admit to the depths they stooped to win not only in California but other places like Maine.

But there is a reason why this country has checks and balances. And there is a reason why people can't arbitrarily vote on the rights of others without having to defend this vote in the logical arena of courts, where you can't invoke panic by proverbially yelling fire in a crowded theatre.

In the courts, you must defend your position. And in the long run, you couldn't. Or rather many of you wouldn't. Again, the specters of gay bogeymen were invoked as your leaders spun false images of avenging hordes for their reluctance to be questioned in the courts about the unprovoked lies they said in pulpits, in speeches, and on commercials.

This time, it didn't work. The court saw through the phony claims and realized something, which I hope that many of you now do -- you have no logical reason to either deny us the right to love or to deny us the ability to protect the ones whom we love.

But please don't think that even though we are celebrating, the lgbt community is naive to think that this ends the struggle for marriage equality.

We know this is just the beginning of a long fight to attain something that should have been ours from the beginning.

But that's okay.

We are a community who learn from our past mistakes. At times we lose, but we learn to adapt and we eventually win.

So bring it on. We are not afraid.

Related post:

Message to the religious right - this isn't just about marriage, it's about history

 
Dear supporters of Proposition 8, Please do not take my words as gloating but rather as a clear and concise analysis of why you may be feeling dejected now over the overturning of Proposition 8. In...
Dear supporters of Proposition 8, Please do not take my words as gloating but rather as a clear and concise analysis of why you may be feeling dejected now over the overturning of Proposition 8. In...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 198
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
ronkw
Wake up and smell the whiskey
05:50 PM on 08/06/2010
This judge, and others, have over ruled the will and voice of millions of citizens. Some states may wish to recognize gay marrige and other states may not.
That is/was part of the genius of States Rights. A federal judge should never have taken this case.
They are systematically dismanteling that seperation.
While you maybe pleased with the outcome this time.....eventually, this is destructive.

Please spare me the homophob remarks, this is a comment on the law and judges.
06:05 PM on 08/06/2010
" A federal judge should never have taken this case."

As a retired trial lawyer and law professor, I feel compelled to give you a little education.
Federal courts are empowered to hear cases involving "federal questions". A claim of violation of the 14th amendment due process and equal protection clauses is purely a "federal question", so you see you do not know what you are talking about. Please don't make silly and erroneous comments "...on the law and judges" until you've studied constitutional law.
photo
TuoulumneFlower
Not anymore.
06:11 PM on 08/06/2010
Answer us this: are the rights you enjoy under the constitution unalienable, or not?

Can we vote to deprive you of your rights? For example, personally, I really, really hate guns. There is ample evidence that they cause irreperable harm and death, even. Yet I recognize that people have a right to own them, and I do not think any State has a right to deprive you of that.

Did you support the Supreme Court overturning the Chicago gun ban a few weeks ago? The same reasoning applies to this ruling.
05:33 PM on 08/06/2010
I have tried to spread this video for many years, and now seems to be a good time! Brilliant ad for gay-marriage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2nsGtd7y3c
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
skatoolaki
Passionate, fiery walking contradiction.
04:11 PM on 08/06/2010
Well said. The Bible literalists and marriage purists realize their "reasons" don't stand up to the light of day. The truth - and love - will reign supreme in the end; there's really no stopping this progress and this evolution of marriage (as marriage has evolved over time for centuries now - it was never a staid, set institution). No matter how hard they fight and condemn and decry, this fight will be won someday.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
jennysez
01:44 PM on 08/06/2010
Well said, Alvin, bring it on!
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
EmmaJ76
Designer, writer, political nerd
06:29 AM on 08/06/2010
Brilliant post Alvin.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Stephanie Cormier
05:24 PM on 08/05/2010
must be nice to vote on the relationship status of complete strangers... worry about your own damn relationships
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
jennysez
01:44 PM on 08/06/2010
Here! Here!
04:54 PM on 08/05/2010
I actually don't understand why "civil union" or better yet "union" isn't good enough. Why does it have to be "marriage"?
06:40 PM on 08/05/2010
Because that's separate but equal. See Brown vs Board of Education
10:05 AM on 08/06/2010
And yet, not a single lawsuit against civil unions/domestic partnerships to have them overturned.

Brown said separate educational facilities are inherently equal. "Separate but equal" as a general philosophy isn't unconstitutional.
10:23 PM on 08/05/2010
Please read the decision. It's in there.
02:38 PM on 08/06/2010
I'd rather solicit the numerous and varied opinions of those who are so passionate about the subject. It lends a more realistic tone than an academic discussion.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
AxelDC
04:45 PM on 08/05/2010
They lied because their real argument is "We don't like gays."
10:07 AM on 08/06/2010
Interestingly, they have a right to not support gay marriage based on that very premise. You don't have to fully corroborate your mindset to exercise your right to vote. They can hate gays all they want...it's not unconstitutional to do so. It's not unconstitutional to disagree with gay marriage.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Spank05
03:08 PM on 08/06/2010
Oh you can disagree with it all you want to.

Just don't use your religion as the basis of why something should be illegal.

That's on par with what the Taliban does.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
brahdog
hello walls
02:31 AM on 08/09/2010
"they have a right to not support gay marriage based on that very premise"

actually no. even the supreme court agreed in romer v colorado that animus towards gays is not a valid constitutional argument to deny them equal protection and due process under the law.
photo
LintLass
"When you can balance a tackhammer on your head...
03:18 PM on 08/05/2010
Lots of diversions from the content of this article, here, I see: namely the anti-gay lying.

That's where all those 'findings of fact' came from, of course.
12:24 PM on 08/05/2010
I can’t wait for the push for legalizing polygamy (or does this ruling now “re-grant†that right), and father/child, mother/child marriage.

Wow – will all of you support a father marrying, with her consent, a 16 year old daughter?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:07 PM on 08/05/2010
Slippery slope logical fallacy. This ruling does not mean that those others will follow.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
rf dude
Just an average Man of Bronze
11:42 AM on 08/06/2010
Not even a slippery-slope.

Pure straw-man, and a poor one at that as it's based entirely on bad stereotype and prejudice.

Nobody seriously equates a gay relationship with any of the perversions these idi0ts spew.
01:22 PM on 08/05/2010
Wow.. that's some great logic you got there. Persons over the age of consent who are not related to each other have had the right to marry for centuries. This should remain true regardless of the gender makeup of those "persons".

In case you were confused, incestual marriage has never been the law in the United State. Muth v. Frank, 412 F.3d 808 (7th Cir. 2005).

And actually, this case doesn't pave the way to polygamy. The (arch-conservative) Supreme Court paved the way in Lawrence v. Texas, when it held "the intimate, adult consensual conduct at issue here was part of the liberty protected by the substantive component of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process protections".

If you disagree with the ruling, at least make a substantive contribution. Your lack of thought is annoying.
12:09 PM on 08/05/2010
at least this happened just before nov.........laughing..........one more reason for businesses not to accept any document from CA
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lukester
11:51 AM on 08/05/2010
People should not try to legislate discrimination against gay people. They should confine themselves to imploring their God of miracles to simply change sexual orientation.

They should just pray incessantly and leave it to God rather than try to execute His judgment themselves.

That way, they will waste only their time and not ours.
12:10 PM on 08/05/2010
well good for you.......but i am not religious
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
brahdog
hello walls
02:32 AM on 08/09/2010
so whats your excuse
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
AxelDC
04:50 PM on 08/05/2010
That worked wonders for Ted Haggard and George Rekkers.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
skatoolaki
Passionate, fiery walking contradiction.
04:15 PM on 08/06/2010
I am so totally fanning you for that one. :)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
shamumbo
11:32 AM on 08/05/2010
It could be added that the Yes on 8 people's witnesses were completely incapable of making any real points in favor of their position.
photo
LintLass
"When you can balance a tackhammer on your head...
02:39 PM on 08/05/2010
A lot of what they said in the election and in the media would be perjury in a court of law.

Though that's kind of the point, they lied.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
AxelDC
04:50 PM on 08/05/2010
The only reason to oppose gay marriage is because you don't like gays. That's why we have civil rights protections.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bill J4321
11:24 AM on 08/05/2010
When a group of individuals advocates for treating certain human beings as less than human beings, what other tactic could be implemented besides lying?

For there simply exists no reason for unequal treatment of law-abiding human beings. Not one.

Therefore, the entire platform must be built on lies.
11:05 AM on 08/05/2010
H Alvin,

Hope to meet up with you sometime to discuss further.