"It is true that you may fool all of the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all of the time; but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time" Abraham Lincoln
The issue
For some time now homosexualists and their allies have been bandying around a set of propagandist lies and half-truths. The apparent intent is that if you say it often enough, and swamp every discussion with them, then they come to be taken as truths. It is classical use of discourse to create power arrangements through which interests can achieve their aims in society. It seems that even the judiciary have had enough of this. Last year Judge Jones used the rational basis test to put some of these homosexualist propaganda items to rest.
The issue
For some time now homosexualists and their allies have been bandying around a set of propagandist lies and half-truths. The apparent intent is that if you say it often enough, and swamp every discussion with them, then they come to be taken as truths. It is classical use of discourse to create power arrangements through which interests can achieve their aims in society. It seems that even the judiciary have had enough of this. Last year Judge Jones used the rational basis test to put some of these homosexualist propaganda items to rest.
Taking the homosexualists' arguments to bits, legally speaking
In his ruling on the charges put forward in a lawsuit in the US District Court of Nevada in April 2012 by a group of eight homosexual couples 'married' outside the state who objected bans on same sex marriages in that state, Judge Robert C. Jones applied rational basis principles to conclude that,
In his ruling on the charges put forward in a lawsuit in the US District Court of Nevada in April 2012 by a group of eight homosexual couples 'married' outside the state who objected bans on same sex marriages in that state, Judge Robert C. Jones applied rational basis principles to conclude that,
As to those Plaintiffs validly married in other jurisdictions whose marriages the State of Nevada refuses to recognize, the protection of Nevada’s public policy is a valid reason for the State’s refusal to credit the judgment of another state, lest other states be able to dictate the public policy of Nevada.
Following are important examples from Judge Jones' ruling of how the homosexualist propaganda and slogans are easily discredited by the rational basis test.
Example 1. The Judge notes that the court of appeals ruled the following: "homosexuals do not constitute a suspect or quasi-suspect class entitled to greater than rational basis scrutiny under the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment".
Example 2. The Judge notes that previous rulings include that "homosexuals had suffered a history of discrimination, but that homosexuality was not immutable and that homosexuals were not politically powerless because they had successfully lobbied legislatures to pass anti-discrimination legislation protecting them".
Example 3. Judge Jones notes that "Unlike members of minority races, for example,homosexuals do not in effect inherit the effects of past discrimination through their parents".
Example 4. "In the context of a characteristic like homosexuality, where no lingering effects of past discrimination are inherited, it is contemporary disadvantages that matter for the purposes of assessing disabilities due to discrimination. Any such disabilities with respect to homosexuals have been largely erased since 1990".
Example 5. Judge Jones clarifies: "The Supreme Court has not yet ruled that homosexuality is immutable for the purposes of equal protection, so although public and scientific opinion on the matter may have changed in the intervening years High Tech Gays’ analysis on the point cannot be countermanded by a district court on that basis".
Example 6. (worth noting at length so that the myth of homosexuals' political powerlessness is put to rest) "...most importantly, the Supreme Court has not ruled that homosexuals lack political power such that High Tech Gays’ determination that they do not lack it has been undermined, and homosexuals have in fact gained significant political power in the years since High Tech Gays was decided. Today, unlike in 1990, the public media are flooded with editorial,commercial, and artistic messages urging the acceptance of homosexuals. Anti-homosexual messages are rare in the national informational and entertainment media, except that anti-homosexual characters are occasionally used as foils for pro-homosexual viewpoints in entertainment media. Homosexuals serve openly in federal and state political offices. The President of the United States has announced his personal acceptance of the concept of same-sex marriage, and the announcement was widely applauded in the national media. Not only has the President expressed his moral support, he has directed the Attorney General not to defend against legal challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), a federal law denying recognition to same-sex marriages at the federal level. It is exceedingly rare that a president refuses in his official capacity to defend a democratically enacted federal law in court based upon his personal political disagreements. That the homosexual-rights lobby has achieved this indicates that the group has great political power. The State of Nevada has itself outlawed sexual-orientation-based discrimination as a general matter".
Example 7. Furthermore, the Judge notes, 'The question of “powerlessness” under an equal protection analysis requires that the group’s chances of democratic success be virtually hopeless, not simply that its path to success is difficult or challenging because of democratic forces ... in the present case, it simply cannot be disputed that there have historically been sufficient pro-homosexual legislators (or anti-homosexual and indifferent legislators who can be democratically bargained with) in the State of Nevada to protect homosexuals from oppression as a general matter'.
Example 8. Judge Jones also said, 'The relevant consideration is the group’s “ability to attract the attention of the lawmakers,” an ability homosexuals cannot seriously be said not to possess. The issue of homosexual rights, and particularly the issue of same-sex marriages or quasi-marriage relationships has been front and center in American politics for nearly a decade. Just this month, the People of several more States voted whether to approve or prohibit same-sex marriages'.
Example 9. On homosexuals comparing themselves to the way women have been treated, the Judge has this to say: "Homosexuals have not historically been denied the right to vote, the right to serve on juries, or the right to own property".
Example 10. (On marriage), Judge Jones notes, 'Although the title of “marriage” has been withheld, the State of Nevada has burdened none of the core substantive rights that comprise the right to marry, sometimes referred to as the “constitutional incidents of marriage.” Plaintiffs may establish legally cognizable families under Nevada’s domestic partnership laws ... Nevada’s laws do not purport to prevent (nor could they under the First Amendment prevent) the private use of the word “marriage” in the context of same-sex relationships, and same-sex couples will of course use the word if they wish to. This has no bearing on whether the State must give the title its imprimatur ... the right to privacy is not implicated here, as Plaintiffs desire not to be left alone,but, on the contrary, desire to obtain public recognition of their relationships'
Example 11. Judge Jones says this about the state's interest in marriage versus fundamental rights : "The protection of the traditional institution of marriage, which is a conceivable basis for the distinction drawn in this case, is a legitimate state interest ... The State has not crossed the constitutional line by maintaining minor differences in civil rights and responsibilities that are not themselves fundamental rights comprising the constitutional component of the right to marriage, or by reserving the label of “marriage” for one-man–one-woman couples in a culturally and historically accurate way'.
Example 12. (Which deals with the 'equality' demands): "As Justice O’Connor notes in concurrence in Lawrence, there are additional reasons to promote the traditional institution of marriage apart from mere moral disapproval of homosexual behavior, and these reasons provide a rational basis for distinguishing between opposite-sex and same-sex couples in the context of civil marriage. Human beings are created through the conjugation of one man and one woman ... The perpetuation of the human race depends upon traditional procreation between men and women. The institution developed in our society, its predecessor societies, and by nearly all societies on Earth throughout history to solidify, standardize, and legalize the relationship between a man, a woman, and their offspring, is civil marriage between one man and one woman. See Maynard v. Hill,125 U.S. 190,211 (1888) (“It is an institution, in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress”)".
Example 13. On the possible effects of doing away with the meaning of marriage, the Judge has this to say: "Should that institution be expanded to include same-sex couples with the state’s imprimatur, it is conceivable that a meaningful percentage of heterosexual persons would cease to value the civil institution as highly as they previously hadand hence enter into it less frequently, opting for purely private ceremonies, if any, whether religious or secular, but in any case without civil sanction, because they no longer wish to be associated with the civil institution as redefined, leading to an increased percentage of out-of-wedlock children, single-parent families, difficulties in property disputes after the dissolution of what amount to common law marriages in a state where such marriages are not recognized, or other unforeseen consequences ... See Jackson, 2012 WL 3255201, (“[I]t is not beyond rational speculation to conclude that fundamentally altering the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions might result in undermining the societal understanding of the link between marriage, procreation, and family structure")".
Example 14. On why the State has an interest in protecting marriage, the Judge states, "The legal question is whether the State of Nevada has any conceivable rational basis for the distinction it has drawn. It does, and the laws at issue in this case therefore survive rational basis review under the Equal Protection Clause ... Preserving the traditional institution of marriage is different from the mere moral disapproval of a disfavored group".
There is much, much more in this ruling, it's worth reading in its entirety. Suffice to say that I found this judgement to be one of the clearest deconstruction of the usual homosexualist claims.
So when you next encounter the standard ramblings of homosexualists, carrying on about 'equal rights, 'discrimination', 'powerlessness', 'drinking from different fountains', 'same as other minorities', and so on and so forth - you're welcome to point them to here, or directly to the Sevcik v. Sandoval ruling.
Example 1. The Judge notes that the court of appeals ruled the following: "homosexuals do not constitute a suspect or quasi-suspect class entitled to greater than rational basis scrutiny under the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment".
Example 2. The Judge notes that previous rulings include that "homosexuals had suffered a history of discrimination, but that homosexuality was not immutable and that homosexuals were not politically powerless because they had successfully lobbied legislatures to pass anti-discrimination legislation protecting them".
Example 3. Judge Jones notes that "Unlike members of minority races, for example,homosexuals do not in effect inherit the effects of past discrimination through their parents".
Example 4. "In the context of a characteristic like homosexuality, where no lingering effects of past discrimination are inherited, it is contemporary disadvantages that matter for the purposes of assessing disabilities due to discrimination. Any such disabilities with respect to homosexuals have been largely erased since 1990".
Example 5. Judge Jones clarifies: "The Supreme Court has not yet ruled that homosexuality is immutable for the purposes of equal protection, so although public and scientific opinion on the matter may have changed in the intervening years High Tech Gays’ analysis on the point cannot be countermanded by a district court on that basis".
Example 6. (worth noting at length so that the myth of homosexuals' political powerlessness is put to rest) "...most importantly, the Supreme Court has not ruled that homosexuals lack political power such that High Tech Gays’ determination that they do not lack it has been undermined, and homosexuals have in fact gained significant political power in the years since High Tech Gays was decided. Today, unlike in 1990, the public media are flooded with editorial,commercial, and artistic messages urging the acceptance of homosexuals. Anti-homosexual messages are rare in the national informational and entertainment media, except that anti-homosexual characters are occasionally used as foils for pro-homosexual viewpoints in entertainment media. Homosexuals serve openly in federal and state political offices. The President of the United States has announced his personal acceptance of the concept of same-sex marriage, and the announcement was widely applauded in the national media. Not only has the President expressed his moral support, he has directed the Attorney General not to defend against legal challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), a federal law denying recognition to same-sex marriages at the federal level. It is exceedingly rare that a president refuses in his official capacity to defend a democratically enacted federal law in court based upon his personal political disagreements. That the homosexual-rights lobby has achieved this indicates that the group has great political power. The State of Nevada has itself outlawed sexual-orientation-based discrimination as a general matter".
Example 7. Furthermore, the Judge notes, 'The question of “powerlessness” under an equal protection analysis requires that the group’s chances of democratic success be virtually hopeless, not simply that its path to success is difficult or challenging because of democratic forces ... in the present case, it simply cannot be disputed that there have historically been sufficient pro-homosexual legislators (or anti-homosexual and indifferent legislators who can be democratically bargained with) in the State of Nevada to protect homosexuals from oppression as a general matter'.
Example 8. Judge Jones also said, 'The relevant consideration is the group’s “ability to attract the attention of the lawmakers,” an ability homosexuals cannot seriously be said not to possess. The issue of homosexual rights, and particularly the issue of same-sex marriages or quasi-marriage relationships has been front and center in American politics for nearly a decade. Just this month, the People of several more States voted whether to approve or prohibit same-sex marriages'.
Example 9. On homosexuals comparing themselves to the way women have been treated, the Judge has this to say: "Homosexuals have not historically been denied the right to vote, the right to serve on juries, or the right to own property".
Example 10. (On marriage), Judge Jones notes, 'Although the title of “marriage” has been withheld, the State of Nevada has burdened none of the core substantive rights that comprise the right to marry, sometimes referred to as the “constitutional incidents of marriage.” Plaintiffs may establish legally cognizable families under Nevada’s domestic partnership laws ... Nevada’s laws do not purport to prevent (nor could they under the First Amendment prevent) the private use of the word “marriage” in the context of same-sex relationships, and same-sex couples will of course use the word if they wish to. This has no bearing on whether the State must give the title its imprimatur ... the right to privacy is not implicated here, as Plaintiffs desire not to be left alone,but, on the contrary, desire to obtain public recognition of their relationships'
Example 11. Judge Jones says this about the state's interest in marriage versus fundamental rights : "The protection of the traditional institution of marriage, which is a conceivable basis for the distinction drawn in this case, is a legitimate state interest ... The State has not crossed the constitutional line by maintaining minor differences in civil rights and responsibilities that are not themselves fundamental rights comprising the constitutional component of the right to marriage, or by reserving the label of “marriage” for one-man–one-woman couples in a culturally and historically accurate way'.
Example 12. (Which deals with the 'equality' demands): "As Justice O’Connor notes in concurrence in Lawrence, there are additional reasons to promote the traditional institution of marriage apart from mere moral disapproval of homosexual behavior, and these reasons provide a rational basis for distinguishing between opposite-sex and same-sex couples in the context of civil marriage. Human beings are created through the conjugation of one man and one woman ... The perpetuation of the human race depends upon traditional procreation between men and women. The institution developed in our society, its predecessor societies, and by nearly all societies on Earth throughout history to solidify, standardize, and legalize the relationship between a man, a woman, and their offspring, is civil marriage between one man and one woman. See Maynard v. Hill,125 U.S. 190,211 (1888) (“It is an institution, in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress”)".
Example 13. On the possible effects of doing away with the meaning of marriage, the Judge has this to say: "Should that institution be expanded to include same-sex couples with the state’s imprimatur, it is conceivable that a meaningful percentage of heterosexual persons would cease to value the civil institution as highly as they previously hadand hence enter into it less frequently, opting for purely private ceremonies, if any, whether religious or secular, but in any case without civil sanction, because they no longer wish to be associated with the civil institution as redefined, leading to an increased percentage of out-of-wedlock children, single-parent families, difficulties in property disputes after the dissolution of what amount to common law marriages in a state where such marriages are not recognized, or other unforeseen consequences ... See Jackson, 2012 WL 3255201, (“[I]t is not beyond rational speculation to conclude that fundamentally altering the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions might result in undermining the societal understanding of the link between marriage, procreation, and family structure")".
Example 14. On why the State has an interest in protecting marriage, the Judge states, "The legal question is whether the State of Nevada has any conceivable rational basis for the distinction it has drawn. It does, and the laws at issue in this case therefore survive rational basis review under the Equal Protection Clause ... Preserving the traditional institution of marriage is different from the mere moral disapproval of a disfavored group".
There is much, much more in this ruling, it's worth reading in its entirety. Suffice to say that I found this judgement to be one of the clearest deconstruction of the usual homosexualist claims.
So when you next encounter the standard ramblings of homosexualists, carrying on about 'equal rights, 'discrimination', 'powerlessness', 'drinking from different fountains', 'same as other minorities', and so on and so forth - you're welcome to point them to here, or directly to the Sevcik v. Sandoval ruling.
RSS Feed