I happened to catch the first part of this morning's On Point on VPR. Tom Ashbrook was hosting a discussion of the California Supreme Court's recent decision supporting Gay Marriage. One of the many guests this morning was Brian Brown. Mr. Brown is the executive director for the California chapter of the National Organization for Marriage. Mr. Brown is against Gay Marriage. Mr. Brown is a moron.
Mr. Brown was only on the show for a few minutes, but it was long enough to illustrate just how much of a moron he was. First of all, he started by ranting about how activist judges are a huge problem. Then he stated that the California Supreme Court decision was just another example of how an activist judge can have a huge effect. He said, and I quote, "One judge forced this decision on California. One Judge." One judge? Really? One person formed the majority decision in this case? Funny thing, I heard it was a 4-3 decision, which means there were 4 (four) judges in the majority opinion. I know it's been a long time since I was in a formal math class, but I'm pretty sure 1 and 4 are different. Quite a bit different.
Perhaps I'm just latching onto nothing here, but that statement, that one statement, really pissed me off. Granted, most of what he was saying pissed me off. But, that one, that's the one that set me off. I don't often talk to the radio, there really isn't much point. But after I heard Mr. Brown's One Judge statement, I sat there fuming. WTF?!? I yelled. W. T. F. Do you even know what you are talking about? There were 4 judges forming the majority opinion, please tell me exactly which one of them is the One Judge. I'd also like to know what he'd be saying if it had been a 4-3 decision against Gay Marriage. Would he be standing there claiming it was One Judge who made the decision. No, I'm pretty sure he'd be standing there saying these are 4 terrific judges who really know what they're talking about and he's really glad they made the right decision.
And that's the other thing. We're talking about the California Supreme Court. Did you miss those two little words? Supreme. Court. I think that kinda means it's an important court, and those are important people. They're also probably pretty smart. Somehow I don't think it quite appropriate for some moron who can't even count to go around telling these 4 Supreme Court Justices that they made the wrong decision. I know they're only human, but still. It's not for Joe Schmoe to be telling a Supreme Court Justice that he was wrong.
Showing posts with label gay marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gay marriage. Show all posts
20 May 2008
Stuffing a Sock In It
originally blogged Wed. 23 April
http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080422/NEWS04/804220375/1004/NEWS03
http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080423/OPINION/804230302/1038/OPINION01
Last summer the Vermont Legislature created the Vermont Commission on Family Recognition and Protection to explore the possibility of expanding Vermont's Civil Union law to grant gays full marriage rights. The commission held public meetings to ask Vermonters how they feel about Civil Unions and gay marriage. The commission just released it's report to the Legislature. The report strongly recommended that legislators seriously consider the differences between Civil Unions and gay marriage, but the report did not actually endorse or condone either.
The most interesting part of this commission and it's report is the opponents to gay marriage. There are several groups in Vermont working against gay marriage. Two of these groups actively boycotted the commission's hearings. When the report was issued, the president of one of the groups said, ""They can't really claim to have heard from all Vermonters." If he is suggesting that the commission's report is faulty because the commission did not receive information from the (supposedly) many Vermonters against gay marriage, then he has only himself to blame. When a series of public hearings are scheduled for the express purpose of gaining information about a subject and you have information you consider important to the topic, then you attend the meetings. You do not behave like a grade schooler and refuse to share your information because you assumed your voice would not be heard, or because you assumed the leaders of the hearings were already decided. If they were already decided, then they wouldn't be hosting public hearings. Nor do you go out and hold your own set of hearings in opposition to the commission, which is what this one anti- gay marriage group is planning to do. First of all, the commission has already issued it's report, your hearings are too late. Second, you should have attended the commission's hearings.
According to an editorial in today's Rutland Herald, the commission reported that there was very little opposition to gay marriage voiced in the hearings. The legislature is going to read this, and very likely conclude that there is only a minority opposition to gay marriage. The legislature is (I hope) going to act on this information and begin the process of allowing gays to marry. And then the opposition groups are going to come crawling out of the woodwork, complaining that their voices weren't heard at the commission's meetings and they have been disenfranchised from the process. The opposition groups are going to point to the commission's report and claim that it was biased in favor of gay marriage from the beginning. The opposition is going to be loud and spread misinformation and attempt to convince Vermonters that gay marriage is just another way that the legislature is forcing it's liberal, left wing agenda on Vermonters. And that's going to piss me off. Because the opportunity was given for everyone to voice their opinion, share their information, and provide facts to support their ideas. If you chose to stuff a sock in your mouth and not share important information, then that's your fault. Don't try to blame it on anybody else.
I sincerely hope that when the opposition groups begin their whining and complaining we all remember who it was who refused to participate in the discussion in the first place.
http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080422/NEWS04/804220375/1004/NEWS03
http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080423/OPINION/804230302/1038/OPINION01
Last summer the Vermont Legislature created the Vermont Commission on Family Recognition and Protection to explore the possibility of expanding Vermont's Civil Union law to grant gays full marriage rights. The commission held public meetings to ask Vermonters how they feel about Civil Unions and gay marriage. The commission just released it's report to the Legislature. The report strongly recommended that legislators seriously consider the differences between Civil Unions and gay marriage, but the report did not actually endorse or condone either.
The most interesting part of this commission and it's report is the opponents to gay marriage. There are several groups in Vermont working against gay marriage. Two of these groups actively boycotted the commission's hearings. When the report was issued, the president of one of the groups said, ""They can't really claim to have heard from all Vermonters." If he is suggesting that the commission's report is faulty because the commission did not receive information from the (supposedly) many Vermonters against gay marriage, then he has only himself to blame. When a series of public hearings are scheduled for the express purpose of gaining information about a subject and you have information you consider important to the topic, then you attend the meetings. You do not behave like a grade schooler and refuse to share your information because you assumed your voice would not be heard, or because you assumed the leaders of the hearings were already decided. If they were already decided, then they wouldn't be hosting public hearings. Nor do you go out and hold your own set of hearings in opposition to the commission, which is what this one anti- gay marriage group is planning to do. First of all, the commission has already issued it's report, your hearings are too late. Second, you should have attended the commission's hearings.
According to an editorial in today's Rutland Herald, the commission reported that there was very little opposition to gay marriage voiced in the hearings. The legislature is going to read this, and very likely conclude that there is only a minority opposition to gay marriage. The legislature is (I hope) going to act on this information and begin the process of allowing gays to marry. And then the opposition groups are going to come crawling out of the woodwork, complaining that their voices weren't heard at the commission's meetings and they have been disenfranchised from the process. The opposition groups are going to point to the commission's report and claim that it was biased in favor of gay marriage from the beginning. The opposition is going to be loud and spread misinformation and attempt to convince Vermonters that gay marriage is just another way that the legislature is forcing it's liberal, left wing agenda on Vermonters. And that's going to piss me off. Because the opportunity was given for everyone to voice their opinion, share their information, and provide facts to support their ideas. If you chose to stuff a sock in your mouth and not share important information, then that's your fault. Don't try to blame it on anybody else.
I sincerely hope that when the opposition groups begin their whining and complaining we all remember who it was who refused to participate in the discussion in the first place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
