In a stunning refusal to accept the obvious moral superiority of the leftist gay agenda, the State of California had the audacity to show up in court recently, in defense of Proposition 8.
Closing arguments in the case of Perry v. Rampant Bigoted Homophobes Schwarzenegger were heard this week in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
The case wrapped up on Wednesday, June 16th, once again bringing the controversial gay marriage issue to the forefront of the news and rallying the media into a froth.
In an article by Dante Atkins, radical blog Daily Kos, implied a hidden motive behind the state’s defense in this particular case.
The angle they chose was that of procreation–after all, “it’ll send the signal that it’s okay for your kids to be gay!” is not a valid legal argument. (Source: Daily Kos)
Because, of course, that’s what is really behind any opposition to gay marriage: an absolute intolerance and irrational fear of homosexuality. Won’t somebody think of the children?
Proposition 8, which amends the state’s constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman, was passed into law in 2008 by a little something I like to call “the will of the people.” That is to say, a majority of voters supported it. Voters in that wildly conservative state of California, I mean.
Almost immediately, there were riots. Drag queens invaded churches. Mormons were yelled at. Somebody probably kicked a Christian puppy, but I can’t be sure.
NOH8, a PR campaign launched shortly after the passage of Prop 8, implies in its very name that anyone who stands against “marriage equality” must do so out of bigotry and intolerance. (I’ve written about NOH8 on my own blog, which you can read here.)
Yes. Homophobes one and all.
On Thursday, The Washington Blade, a prominent DC-based LGBT publication, posted an article by gay marriage advocate Jessica Lee, who interviewed Robert Levy. Levy is the chairman of the Libertarian think tank, The Cato Institute.
Levy, and the Cato Institute in general, are strong proponents of gay marriage, based on Constitutional arguments.
“Whenever government imposes obligations or dispenses benefits, it may not ‘deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’ That provision is explicit in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, applicable to the states, and implicit in the Fifth Amendment, applicable to the federal government.” (Source: washingtonblade.com)
Wait. What’s missing? Where is the sneering description of anti-gay marriage advocates as outdated, fundamentalist rednecks who probably secretly dress in white sheets? There isn’t even one mention of Anita Bryant.