1. woodroad34d says

    To be “judicial tyranny”, they’d have to take something away. Did they take your vaunted heterosexuality? Did they take away your marriage? Did they take away your “right” to your religion? No, they took away your ability to be bigoted–and that’s not a right; it’s a correction to society to be better than the small parts you inhabit. Learn to speak English properly and understand the words. Classless little gnome.

  2. MiddleoftheRoader says

    For 200 years, the Supreme Court had never said that the 2nd Amendment gave individuals a right to have guns — and then, presto, a few years ago the conservatives on the Supreme Court read the constitution in that way. But “finding” that right in the constitution wasn’t judicial tyranny to the conservatives!

    Similarly, the Supreme Court had never said that a corporation had the same First Amendment rights as real people. But when the Supreme Court “found” that right, the conservatives didn’t scream about judicial tyranny.

    This is all about hypocrisy combined with bigotry — both of which many (not all) so-called conservatives and fundamentalists have in abundance (caveat: Justice Kennedy is a ‘conservative Republican’, so we can’t paint all of them as unenlightened bigots; it’s a person-by-person thing).

    On the other hand, it doesn’t matter how hypocritcal or bigoted they are. The reality is that we have a fight on our hands, and we need to win it not only in the courts, but with the legislatures and the public in general.

  3. DannyEastVillage says

    @ MiddleoftheRoader: I think the real deal is that this issue is already dead. In conservative families that have come to terms with their gay loved ones, it’s not only dead, but had begun to give off a stench. Even conservatives don’t like to hear people trash their loved ones. My mother was one of those: she cut off her two sisters when they expressed chilly attitudes about me. I didn’t find this out until years after it happened, not long before my mom’s death. No, this issue is already dead. Burial will take a little longer, however, given the ghoulishness of conservatives.

  4. says

    What Eastman, who lives in California, deliberately ignores is the fact that California legislature passed marriage equality bills twice, only to have them both vetoed by GOP Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Schwarzenegger’s veto was ostensibly to protect the sanctity of marriage, even though he was hiding at least one extramarital affair, with his family’s housekeeper, at the time.)

  5. Kev C says

    Most dictionaries already include gay marriage under marriage, so if anyone is redefining marriage as a heterosexual only meaning, it’s NOM and the likes.

  6. barryearle says

    All this marching out of the old shebboleths–male/female families and protecting the children and judicial activism–is nothing but a smoke screen so they can hang on a second or two longer. Why doesn’t one of these so-called journalists ask how the Supreme Court’s ruling will affect these right wing organizations’ fundraising and their future. Because that’s the real question. These guys and gals are on their way to the buggy whip museum (and I don’t mean S&M. I hope they invested their blood drenched money well. Or else find a new victim to pursue. Muslims, maybe? Or immigrants? Unfortunately, we probably have not heard the last from this crowd.

  7. Bob says

    on a paid lackey of a few conservative interests?
    NOM is having trouble getting money, so he is just out there stirring the pot.

  8. Seattle Mike says

    Democracy does not mean that three wolves and one sheep vote for what’s for dinner. The courts are designed to protect minorities. Deal with, Professor.

  9. misha says

    @woodroad34d To be fair, the whole SCOTUS ruling did not even take away his right to be bigoted; he still can be a bigot if he chooses. He just looks more and more antiquated and backwards thinking with his attempts at reason. He will be remembered for standing in the way of progress, just like those politicians that were against the civil rights movement and desegregation. He will be remembered for being vitriolic, intolerant, and bearing false witness.

    But he still has the right to be so.

  10. Caliban says

    @misha, EXACTLY

    The SCOTUS didn’t even take away his ability to be anti-gay, just as previous rulings didn’t prevent or stop people from being racist. All it did is create LEGAL equality for gay marriage in California. By not recognizing their standing in the case, it further said that “not liking” gay marriage wasn’t a valid legal argument against it because they couldn’t demonstrate any way they had actually been harmed by it.

    He’s free to go on believing that gay marriages are lesser than straight marriages. Just as I personally believe that Gingrich’s 3rd marriage to his 2nd (at least) mistress is lesser than the marriages (or relationships) of gay couples who have been together for decades. Everybody’s got opinions and they’re welcome to them. (Keeping in mind that opinions are like @ssholes…)

    What he CAN’T do is prevent gay couples from having the same LEGAL rights he does, at least in CA and several other states so far.

  11. KurCus says

    I love how these people scream “activist” court when things don’t go their way but if the court rules in their favor it’s an “act of God”.

  12. Armando says

    The Supreme Court basically said that the government exceeded its authority when it made this laws and limitations. This should be music to a conservative’s ears. As is usually the case, they want to get government off our backs and focus on other parts of our bodies.

  13. Dev says

    Interesting, though, that the “man from behind the curtain” finally comes out and speaks, rather than sending out Brian “spittle drips off my lips” Brown to be the frontman, as he usually is.

  14. says

    This same POS lied on NPR’s “All Things Considered” last Wednesday, hours after the Prop 8 opinion came out (pun intended). He said, without challenge, that in the TRIAL Court the State officials conceded that Prop 8 was unconstitutional (true) and therefore the issues did not get heard (unbelievably false). This from a former Dean of a California law school who no doubt followed every single day of the trial. He counted on laypeople not knowing the difference between Intervenors (who can participate as fully as can the original parties, which is what happened before Chief Judge Walker) and Proponents (who cannot appeal – and neither can Intervenors). Lying for Jesus is alive and well at Chapman University.

  15. SoLeftImRight says

    Funny how the bleating about “judicial activism” only happens when they don’t agree with the Court’s decision. Anyone notice the Voting Rights Act decision from the day before? Even though that has been repeatedly reauthorized by Congress (and quite recently), I’m sure they’re ok with that mess.

  16. Randy says

    I guess NOM has finally realized that Brian Brown has done a lousy job and can’t appear on tv anymore.

    Expect to see Brian resign to spend more time with his family.

  17. Matt N says

    Ummm. MORE than half were voted on. What a dumb-ass.

    NY, WA, ME, MD, RI, DE, MN were all passed by the legislature or referendum.

    I guess I shouldn’t expect a NOMbie to get his facts right.

  18. jeff says

    Certainly Citizens United wasn’t Judicial Tyranny. And the dismantling of the VRA wasnt Judicial Tyranny. Just giving rights to the fags. Just letting the fags get married. Thats tyranny. But I cant really articulate exactly how it is affecting me or any other straight person for that matter.

  19. Kev C says

    That’s because it doesn’t affect the lives of straight people at all. But it does affect their emotions and judgement to such an extent that some “pro-family” groups spend millions of dollars trying to limit the definition of marriage. It’s laughable. We laugh at those “pro-family” numbnuts.

  20. Lymis says

    ” fact that California legislature passed marriage equality bills twice, only to have them both vetoed by GOP Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Schwarzenegger’s veto was ostensibly to protect the sanctity of marriage, even though he was hiding at least one extramarital affair”

    The conservative lie machine spun it that way, but while I normally don’t make any effort to defend Republicans, both Schwarzenegger’s stated reasons and the legal reality were that the California Constitution specifically says that the legislature cannot vote to override an initiative.

    The legislature could have passed marriage if it was the first to weigh in on the matter. Prop 22 was an initiative that banned same-sex marriage by law, and the legislature didn’t have the legal authority to strike it down. They tried twice, and, as much as it completely sucks, Schwarzenegger did the legally right thing by vetoing it and saying that it was up to the courts or the citizens to strike it down.

    When the Courts struck it down, he didn’t fight it, and when Prop 8 passed and was attacked in Court, he officially did not try to defend it.

    There were many things wrong with Schwarzenegger, but this wasn’t one of them. If you want to condemn him for something on this issue, it would be for not heavily campaigning against Prop 8. The voice of a Republican governor campaigning against it could have made a huge difference.

  21. says

    “For a law professor . . , Eastman doesn’t seem to have all that much respect for the judicial process.”

    Nor does he seem to have a firm grasp on the role of the Constitution in determining the validity of laws.

  22. GRIVERA says

    GAYS AND LESBIANS OUGHT TO BE MAD AS HELL! Prop 8 passed and stopped marriages – then later to be found “unconstitutional”?!?!?! HOW?!?! How in the heck did it get to where a human being can be treated like an outcast? Or worse – our taxes are required but no justice for you! How did an “unconstitutional piece of law get past so many people – including the Supreme Court?!?!

    This is a pathetic part of history in America! And all for a make believe god who these people continue to speak about and yet have no evidence but hate, threats and fear. I am fed up with these people and will do I can to make sure they lose their past power for a more loving world. It can never happen with religious influence.

  23. Jerry6 says

    It has been said – “If you cannot fight them; Join them!” The Catholic Church has been losing dues paying members for a long time. I am one that left them in 1956, along with my Wife and three sons. However, for whatever reasons, some of our Gay brothers and sisters believe that Religion should be a part of their lives, along with their surrogate or adopted children. But with the Church’s attitude, why should these Gay people attend their services, or support them? With the Gay priests already in place, who better to understand and guide these Gay brothers and sisters to GOD?

Leave A Reply