Jan 282010
 

Nowhere in the MSM did you see coverage of homosexual activists saying in court, “if we can’t marry, then no one should.”

Nowhere in the MSM did you see coverage of the No on 8 lawyers calling voting Yes On 8 a hate crime.

Nowhere in the MSM did you see coverage of how the judge refused to issue  a reciprocating order compelling No on 8 to turn over their campaign documents the way Yes on 8 had to.

Nowhere in the MSM did you see anything close to a recitation of the legal facts – the most absurd of which is the claims that Homosexuals are a powerless minority. Hmmm, Harvey Milk Day? Our Assembly Speaker?

Again – the Prop 8 trial shows us why the American Media Establishment is a direct threat to our Republic and should be treated as propaganda and regulated under campaign finance law.

Quoting Andy Pugno: “But no matter how loud the pleas for sympathy become, there is simply no legal basis for the fantastical, unsupportable claim that the homosexual community in California is “politically powerless.” Does Equality California, California’s biggest gay lobby organization, think of itself as powerless? Does the Human Rights Campaign, which featured President Obama at their latest dinner, believe they are politically powerless? Are we to believe that these groups are politically powerless despite their ability to raise $43 million to oppose Prop 8, and to attract the support of the entire political establishment, Hollywood and the media? Not with a straight face we can’t.”

The bottom line – only Marriages produce Children. The fact that the voters had to be called on to remind the California Supreme Court of that fact is insane. The fact that the homosexual lobby has run to a liberal judge to usurp the will of 7 million voters and the above comments prove their agenda in their mind justifies tyranny, persecution and whatever other means in order to be advanced.

The Bottom line? – quoting Andy Pugno Again: “What may be lost in all the sensationalism of the past two and a half weeks of trial is that the burden of proof to invalidate Prop 8 lies squarely with the plaintiffs. They cannot win unless they prove that the voters were “irrational” when they chose to preserve the traditional definition of marriage in our state. Contrary to their public relations claims, the outcome of this case does not depend on whether the Prop 8 sponsors can prove that homosexual marriage will harm traditional marriage. The controlling legal issue is not whether homosexual marriage is good or bad, but rather whether the people have the right to decide what is best.  The plaintiffs simply did not carry that burden.

Meanwhile, we have shown that limiting marriage to its longstanding definition is rational because marriage benefits children, not just the adults. Whenever possible, it is best for a child to have both a mother and a father. And man-woman marriage is the only human relationship that can biologically serve that distinctive purpose.  A same-sex relationship can never offer a child both a mother and father. It’s that simple.

The plaintiffs put on a spectacular show-trial of irrelevant evidence, calling to the stand many “expert” witnesses to testify that allowing homosexual marriage would: help local governments raise more tax revenues, help gay and lesbian couples to accumulate greater wealth, and improve the self-esteem of homosexuals.  But those are political arguments for society to consider, not legal support for the claim that the US Constitution contains the right to homosexual marriage. The courtroom is simply not the proper forum for what is clearly a social, not a legal, appeal.

I predict that Judge Walker will legislate from his bench and cite the emotional arguments of the No on 8 side in his decision.

It wouldn’t surprise me to see my name on a list of bigots somewhere soon – remember, it’s all about tolerance, right? (forget what the voters think)

  One Response to “Prop 8 Trial Concludes – Media Bias Shines / No on 8 Arguments Emotional not Legal”

  1. “Toleration is a device used to introduce a new law-system as a prelude to a new intolerance.” R.J. Rushdoony

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.