jaysays.com |

because simon isn’t cool anymore.
Subscribe

Stupid Things People Say About Gays: The Prop 8 Trial Series, Part 7

February 11, 2010 By: jaysays Category: Featured, Stupid Things People Say About Gays

It didn’t take long for the opponents of equal rights to scream “BIAS!” when the San Francisco Chronicle reported that the justice presiding over the Perry case (the Prop 8 case) is a homosexual.  On the blog for the leading anti-equality organization, the National Organization for [Heterosexual Only] Marriage (NOM), its executive director, David Duke Brian S. Brown, had this to say about the justice:

He’s been an amazingly biased and one-sided force throughout this trial, far more akin to an activist than a neutral referee.

The painfully obvious truth is that had the Judge presiding over the trial been a heterosexual, white, Anglo-Saxon, protestant (as has been the case in most trials against equality), and had the queers yelled fowl as often and in the same manner that the bias-based organization NOM has yelled fowl, we would be considered radical extremists intent on denying the religious freedoms of all — oh wait, we already are considered that to NOM!!!

Since a straight judge would be biased against the gays, and a gay judge is purportedly biased against the straights, here’s my theory:  Only a bisexual judge can be unbiased and see both sides of the story… of course, even an unbiased person should be able to easily recognize the repugnant lies being told by Hate, Inc. about us queer folk.

LGBT Lessons for Straight People: The Quota System for the Right to Marry

January 14, 2010 By: geekgirl Category: Featured, LGBT Lessons for Straight People

Like many others, I have been following reports from the courtroom of Judge Walker. I’ve really appreciated the highly detailed reporting at Empty Wheel from Fire Dog Lake.

I could not help but be both bewildered and intrigued by the line of questioning regarding the percentage of straight relationships and gay relationships that are stable, the percentage of couples that want to be monogamous and how long these relationships last. Even more odd, the defense attorney wanted to compare relationships in domestic partnerships compared to marriage. So, the anti-gay marriage crowd wants proof that gay people want to be married, will stay married and will stay monogamous. That’s going to be tricky IF YOU DON’T LET THEM GET MARRIED.

Sorry. I had to get that point about the twisted logic out of my system.

Are we going to apply this same standard to heterosexual couples? Are we now going to legislate whether or not to grant marriage based on how long people stay married? Because if we are, a 50% divorce rate is a failing grade in any class I ever took.

Are we now going to legislate whether or not to grant marriage based on the number of people that want to get married? “Sorry gays, we need for 99% of you to want to get married, stay married and promise to be monogamous, or we won’t give you the right to marry.” Will we have this same quota system for straight couples?

Monogamy? The line of questioning contains a section about a study that shows that not all gay men want to be monogamous. First, the studies are very old. Second, the gay men mentioned having open relationships.  Hmm, so the gay men who answered this study, twenty years ago, were being honest with their partners? We straight people have a better method. It’s called cheating. In other words, adultery. You know, that act that right wing conservatives always seem to be caught in. Mark Sanford? Hiram Monserrate, State Senator of New York? Can someone please tell me the last time somebody went to jail for adultery? Are there even laws against it anymore? Oh yes. Biblical law, right there in the Big Ten Commandments. Yet, that one seems to be ignored by groups like National Organization for Marriage, a well known anti-gay marriage group.

Straight people decide if they want to get married. If you are above the age required in your state and meet the requirement for however biologically unrelated you need to be (i.e. not first cousins), you can get married. No one asks if you intend to be monogamous. No one asks how long you plan to stay married. No one asks why you want to get married. There’s no training, no test. It’s a whole lot easier than adopting a dog from a shelter. Just fill out the paperwork, wait a few days, get married. No church required.

None of  these standards have ever been applied to heterosexual marriage. A 50 percent divorce rate could be an excellent argument for getting rid of marriage all together. Yet, somehow, I think straight people would be up in arms if anyone suggested this.

If only one gay couple wants to marry, that is enough for me. If that couple wants an open relationship with others, that is their business and theirs alone. If one cheats, that is their business and theirs alone.

If their relationship doesn’t last, how is that the government’s business? Britney Spears was married for less than three days. If the government can process a marriage and a divorce in three days, why is it taking 40 years to give same sex couples the right to marry?

jaysays.com contributor geekgirlgeekgirl: Jude, the author of this post, is a straight woman, a mom and has been married for 32 years to the same wonderful man. She believes in Buddhism and attends the United Church of Christ. She is a molecular biologist, her best friend is a lesbian, and she believes that every human deserves equal rights, respect and a life free from hate, fear and discrimination. The only thing she hates is pickles. Her science blog can be found at LGBT Latest Science.

Stupid Things People Say About Gays: The Prop 8 Trial Series, Part 1

January 09, 2010 By: jaysays Category: Featured, Stupid Things People Say About Gays

The trial that may repeal the disgustingly discriminatory Proposition 8 in California (which denies couples of the same sex from entering into the civil contract of marriage) begins January 11, 2010.  With that trial will come many “stupid things” that people say about gays.  The opposition will be presenting their ridiculous arguments (including one where they claim gay marriage will result in children having sexual fantasies about their same-sex friends).  Thus, it’s a proper time to start the Proposition 8 Series for Stupid Things People Say About Gays.

Let’s get things started (even before the trial begins): Hak-Shing William Tam intervened in the much talked about Perry v. Schwarzenegger case as an official litigant to defend Proposition 8 and continue to oppress same-sex couples.  After doing so, a sad thing purportedly happened, Tam’s family began receiving threats and had property vandalized.

Although I completely understand the urge to beat the living hell out of those that oppress any people, I disagree with actually doing it.  However, that’s a discussion for another time and place – we have to get to the stupid things people say about gays before I run out of typing space.

On Friday, Tam appeared in court and advised the justice:

Now that the subject lawsuit is going to trial, I fear I will get more publicity, be more recognizable and that the risk of harm to me and my family will increase. [emphasis added]

It sucks, doesn’t it Tam – to feel that people are targeting you and your family because you believe differently than they do or because you feel differently than they do?  It’s a sad way to have to live your life.  No one should ever feel their family is in danger because of their political opinions or social class.

In fact, I shouldn’t have to feel that way either.  Unfortunately, I’ve felt that way the bulk of my life. I can recall very specific situations where my sexual orientation has nearly killed me.  I can recall each and ever death threat, each hate email, and more particularly I recall the day I discovered the word “FAG” scrawled in the paint of my car door.  I live with that fear every day because of people like you who think you deserve more than I deserve.

Now, please accept my most sarcastic apology if your tyrannical behavior has caused you to feel, even for such a brief period of time, the way you  and those like you have made me feel since I was a young, scared little “sissy” boy.  But there is a key difference in what is happening to you and what has happened to me.  You have put yourself out there to attack and oppress a group of people; whereas, I just came out as a gay man.

Oh, and did I mention that Tam is the one making the claim that the kids will fantasize about their same-sex friends?

NOTE: For more of the column, Stupid Things People Say About Gays, click here.

The Little Engines that Wouldn’t – Courage Campaign and Lambda Legal Refuse to Fight.

December 01, 2009 By: jaysays Category: Featured, LGBT News, Marriage Equality

LittleEngineThatWouldntRick Jacobs, founder of the Courage Campaign (Los Angeles), has announced that polling indicates that overturning Proposition 8 via a ballot measure in 2010 looks bad. According to the Courage Campaign sponsored polling, providing equal rights to all Americans is not supported financially, with strong leadership or with an edge in public opinion.

While the leadership problem could easily be solved if the Courage Campaign would step up and lead, that doesn’t seem to be in the organization’s plan.  Instead, they have given up on a 2010 ballot initiative preferring instead to waste the valuable human resources, passion and drive available to the organization after over a year of rallies, protests, marches and lobbying days.

But Courage Campaign isn’t alone in its criticism of the 2010 ballot initiative.  Lambda Legal declared that, although it will do anything to gain equal marriage rights for LGBT couples, it won’t support this effort.  Why?  Because a loss could “polarize voters” and “hurt and anger supporters of same-sex marriage.”

Well, this supporter of same-sex marriage is more hurt and angered by organizations unwillingness to fight.  The entire scenario smells like garbage to me.  It wreaks of “If it turns out they may actually win, we’ll throw our name in the basket and ride the glory to our next fund drive.

The coalition of various small organizations sponsored by Love, Honor, Cherish, known as Restore Equality 2010, is refusing to give up on their rights.  They intend to press forward in spite of the lack of support from the large, well-funded organizations and continue to seek out volunteers using social media outlets to help them gather the 1,000,000 signatures needed to put an overturn of Proposition 8 on the ballot.  Jo Hoenninger, chair of the interim Executive Committee for Restore Equality 2010, said:

This is a movement for equality. Harvey Milk didn’t wait for research. He hit the streets year after year. We honor his memory by gathering signatures now so our rights can be restored in 2010 not at some later time when it might be an easier struggle.

The end of the year is quickly approaching and with that will come the tax season.  As you consider which organizations deserve your hard earned money, consider which organizations are fighting the hardest, loudest and most resiliently for your rights.  Should your answer be Restore Equality 2010, here’s a link to make your contribution.

The Words of Nelson Mandela Chosen for WeHo Gay Marriage Plaque

August 21, 2009 By: jaysays Category: Featured, LGBT News, Marriage Equality

mandelaA bronze plaque memorializing what might have been and what should have been, same-sex marriage right, is being placed in California’s West Hollywood.  The City Council will unveil the plaque at its September 8th meeting and place it at Hollywood Park off North San Vicente Boulevard.

The plaque will bear an interesting quote from an even more interesting person, former South African president, Nelson Mandela:

I am not truly free if I am taking away someone else’s freedom, just as surely as I am not free when my freedom is taken from me. The oppressed and the oppressor alike are robbed of their humanity.

via West Hollywood to install plaque honoring gay marriages — latimes.com.

South Africa has recognized same-sex marriage since November, 2006 after the Constitutional Court held that banning the marriages “represented a harsh if oblique statement by the law that same-sex couples are outsiders, and that their need for affirmation and protection of their intimate relations as human beings is somehow less than that of heterosexual couples.”

The repeal of the ban on same-sex marriage came only about 10 years after the institution of South Africa’s post-apartheid Constitution, held as one of the most liberal in the world.

Stupid Things People Say About Gays: Gay Rights Aren’t Important Enough So Shut Up and Wait

July 28, 2009 By: jaysays Category: Featured, Stupid Things People Say About Gays

Stupid Things People Say About GaysRecently, a Prop 8 Summit was held to gauge the reaction of LGBT activists to placing an initiative on the ballot to overturn Prop 8 as early as 2010.  The options, generally, were: (1) Put it on the 2010 ballot; or (2) wait until 2012.  I won’t argue the points here as they are exhausting and, ultimately, pointless.  The fact remains that a majority has taken away the rights of a minority and the minority should do everything in its power to regain the rights it once had.

I’m one of those people that tends to read comments on blogs and news items to get an idea of what other people think about things before just taking the author’s words for it.  I was halted when I stumbled upon this comment:

I am probably one of those 10% swing voters who probably could be persuaded to vote for gay marriage.

But with everything else going on now in our culture and government disasters I really don’t care to see or hear about it for awhile. You folks need to give it a rest and revisit it later when society calms down. I and many others of similar political leanings (right of center) want nothing to do with more Liberal agenda items and will vote against it in 2010 as we did in 2008.

If it is about the customer as a previous poster said, then realize your customer is worn out and tired of being called a bigot, homophobe, racist and troglodyte over your little issue. Realize that in the big picture of our society it is a little issue and needs to go back to the end of the line and wait your turn again. [chasejj on SFGate: Politics Blog : New straw poll of gay marriage leaders: Overturn Prop 8 in 2010, emphasis added]

Essentially, this potential “swing voter” is saying that the rights of humans to participate in contractual agreements are “little issues” compared to other events, and the gays should shut up. If we shut up, we get his/her vote, if we continue, we don’t get the vote.  I loathe ultimatums.  I have a rule because of them – you give me the ultimatum, you lose.  So chasejj: I’m not going to shut up – in fact, I’m going to speak out more now thanks to you.  You’ve inspired me to be as loud as possible… louder than I was before… louder than those that outnumber me.

What infuriated me most about the comment, is that it illustrates exactly what it is to be a majority.  It represents power and ego.  The so-called “swing” voter has told me that they rule us.  They have control over our lives, lives which do not affect them, and because our lives do not affect them, our lives are of no importance to them.  We are nothing more than a liberal agenda item; we are inhuman.  Further, we annoy them and because we annoy them, they will vote against us.  They will vote against us just because they can.  They will vote against us and flex their muscles and stand atop the mountain and shout down, “YOU ARE NOTHING – I RULE YOU!”  But you know what?  You annoy me too.  You are on every billboard, every T.V. commercial and every magazine cover and I’m sick of hearing about your heterosexuality.  Why do you have to flaunt it?

But seriously, this defines exactly what this entire marriage debate is about – we are a minority group subjected to the majority’s opinion about how we should live our lives.  We are not asking them to participate in our lives, we are only asking that they allow us to rule our own lives.  In so doing, we have become nags.  We are annoying and, because they are annoyed, they are going to continue to deny us our lives, our choice, simply because they can.

Imagine if suddenly all benefits of marriage were taken away from the majority.  Suddenly, they could no longer purchase a house together without some sort of document indicating that they are jointly or severly liable for the mortgage – like a business or joint tenancy agreement.  They buy the house together, form the business and have the business hold the asset.  Now, they can’t get a homestead exemption on their taxes because, rather than a family home, it is now an asset of a business.

Imagine that, after their marriage is abolished, their paycheck is reduced because now, the U.S. Government gets to tax them on their former spouse’s medical benefits.

Imagine that their former wife/husband goes into the hospital.  In their rush to get there, they neglect to grab an original Power of Attorney for Health Care so they are denied access – after all, they’re just friends now.

Would it then be a big enough issue?  Would it then be a country in crisis?  Would YOU shut up and wait?

But LGBT people aren’t the majority.  We can experience that pain, that torment, that degradation and it is not a national crisis of any importance to anyone other than LGBT people and those that are smart enough, sympathetic enough and willing enough to align themselves because they get it.  We are at the whim of ego and it’s a finicky sort of foe, isn’t it?  So, to those of the same opinion as our commenter: I won’t call you a “bigot, homophobe, racist and troglodyte,” as those terms don’t really fit – instead you win the label of egotist.

NOTE: For more of the column, Stupid Things People Say About Gays, click here.

LGBT Notable News Happenings (May 24, 2009 – May 29, 2009)

May 31, 2009 By: MJ Category: LGBT News

LGBT NewsBritish Clergy Fear New LGBT Rights Bill in UK (May 24, 2009)

In the U.S. some Church leaders, and others on the far right, have expressed major concerns that the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Bill now in the Senate will hurt the rights of the Church to preach to Church members.  Well, it looks as though our community here in the U.S. is not alone in trying to correct misinterpretations and misunderstandings.  In Britain there is an existing law titled the “Criminal Justice and Immigration Act”, and this year a new “clause” has been proposed.  Our brothers and sisters in the UK seem to be experiencing similar frustrations.  The Public Order Act of 1986 includes Part 3 which prohibits expressions of “racial hatred”.  This new “clause” is simply extending the protection to the LGBT community.  The “clause” or Part 3 is not meant to cause any new concerns to leaders of a Church.

LGBT Hate Crime in Cape Cod (May 24, 2009)

A young man named Eric Patten, just 23 years old, was quite drunk and was asked to leave a club in Provincetown.  According to police he began screaming anti-homosexual slurs on the sidewalk outside the club and approached and began attacking two lesbian women.  Police also said Eric called one of the women an offensive slur which would refer to a gay man.  Then, he pushed one of the women into a cafe window both breaking the window and injuring the woman.  Both women were taken to the hospital and bystanders were visibly upset about what they had witnessed.  Mr. Patten is facing a number of charges including resisting arrest.

Gay Minister Appointed in Scotland (May 25, 2009)

The Rev. Scott Rennie was relieved and humbled as the ruling body of the Church of Scotland voted to dismiss the challenge against his new appointment.  Rev. Rennie is now an openly gay minister with a partner and his most current appointment was originally challenged because of his sexual orientation.  He believes the challenge came from religious conservatives within the Anglican Communion. The Anglican Communion would be the equivalent to the Anglican body here in the U.S., where openly gay bishop V. Gene Robinson was consecrated in 2003 in New Hampshire.

New LGBT Youth Cafe in Ireland (May 25, 2009)

Many of the young people in Limerick haven’t really had a place where they can feel comfortable and safe.  Many don’t even feel comfortable or safe in their own local schools.  The cafe is meant, for LGBTQ young people aged 13 – 25, to be a place where they can stop by for a chat with a youth worker, or even just hang out for awhile.  Although it was originally meant for LGBT youth and those who are questioning – non LGBTQ family members and friends are also welcome.

Prop. 8 Upheld by CA Supreme Court (May 27, 2009)

The majority of the justices of the CA Supreme Court voted to uphold the Prop. 8 ban on same-sex marriage.  They said that Prop. 8 was a limited constitutional amendment which did not require a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to be put on the ballot.  The justices decided unanimously that the approximately 18,000 same-sex marriages would still be legal in the state.  The one justice who did vote in favor of overturning Prop. 8, Justice Carlos R. Moreno, said the ruling was, “not just a defeat for same-sex couples, but for any minority group that seeks the protection of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution.  The rule the majority crafts today not only allows same-sex couples to be stripped of the right to marry, it places at risk the state constitutional rights of all disfavored minorities.”

Fed Lawsuit Filed to Overturn CA Prop. 8 (May 27, 2009)

Back in 2000 there was an highly disputed presidential election with memories of hanging chads, butterfly ballots and challenging Electoral College votes.  Recently a new advocacy nonprofit called American Foundation for Equal Rights was formed and they hired attorneys David Boies and Theodore B. Olson to represent two gay couples in a Federal lawsuit challenging Proposition 8.  The two attorneys, Mr. Boies and Mr. Olson, were each the lead attorneys during the court battle over the 2000 Presidential election – and are now working together because they see Federal possibility of overturning Prop. 8.  Mr Olson, who served as solicitor general under former Pres. Bush was quoted as saying, “Creating a second class of citizens is discrimination, plain and simple.  The Constitution of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Abraham Lincoln does not permit it.”  Hopefully their combined legal experience along with their determination will help to win marriage equality for California, as well as other states.

CA School Board Votes to Adopt Anti-Bullying Curriculum (May 27, 2009)

Previously in this column an article was included about a school district in Alameda, CA considering adopting a well written curriculum to help students and teachers have better respect and understanding for the LGBT community.  That vote has taken place and there were cheers when the results of the vote were announced.  The members of the board voted 3-2 in favor of adopting the new curriculum.  Some members of other minority groups present at the meeting were not as happy with the vote – citing problems which exist toward their own groups.  The district Superintendent Kirsten Vital answered them by acknowledging the concerns and saying, “We need to do a better job as a school district, but you don’t take away from one group to support another…”.

More Killings of Gays in Iraq (May 28, 2009)

During the past three months approximately 30 more people have been killed in Iraq because they were either believed to be or know to be homosexual.  Amnesty International wrote directly to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to take action to stop this from happening.  Some believe that these people were tortured then killed in baghdad at the hands of the Mahdi Army, some believe tribal vigilantes were responsible.

Air Force Lt. Col. Battling for Career Over DADT (May 28, 2009)

Lt. Col Victor Fehrenbach is the winner of nine medals for distinguished service in flight and is trying to save his 18-year Air Force career.  A year ago an acquaintance told his bosses he was gay, now Fehrenbach is trying to save his career with the help of The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.  He had been trying to stay in the service until the repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” – but he has decided it is time to speak out.  Lt. Col. Fehrenbach said, “I will fight this in uniform and I’ll fight it without.  I swore an oath to defend and support the Constitution, I’m going to speak out and fight this until the law is repealed because it is not constitutional.”  He has also appeared on the Rachel Maddow Show.

High School in CA Elects Male Prom Queen (May 29, 2009)

When Sergio Garcia, a senior at Fairfax High School in the Hollywood area, submitted his application for Prom Queen earlier this month he told his classmates he would wear a suit and not a dress to the prom.  Then, at his prom the majority of the students voted by paper ballot to elect him.  Senior Keith Perez, who was elected Prom King said that he, “didn’t mind at all” dancing with the school’s first male Prom King.  Vanessa Lo, the senior class president and the prom date of Keith Perez, was happy to announce Garcia as the newly elected Prom Queen that evening.  Many notable alumni of Fairfax High School include members of the band Red Hot Chili Peppers, actresses Mila Kunis and Demi Moore … and another not so notable nor famous alumnus … your humble news gatherer – MJ.

Why Not a Federal Challenge for Gay Rights?

May 28, 2009 By: jaysays Category: Commentary, Thought of the Gay

Gay RightsI don’t begin to understand all the nuances and legal ramifications of the Federal Court suits to overturn Proposition 8, but it’s being widely reported that gay rights’ activists are upset over the federal challenge because:

…the move is premature and could be disastrous for the marriage movement. ***…federal courts have not been as friendly to gay rights issues. San Francisco Chronicle

Although I can’t believe I’m about to say this considering I am a “legal professional” by trade and should consider the attitudes of the Court in any decisions that could affect millions of people, but there is a reason federal challenges are necessary.  The reason is emotional, not legal.  They [the right-wing conservatives] have forced the gay community to live in fear long enough.  If we are afraid of what “might happen” should we challenge the right-wing to give us the rights we deserve, we are forgetting what they are doing to us!  Personally, I’ve lived in fear long enough and I’m not going to continue to be afraid of what they can do to me so much that I let them continue to do what they are already doing to me.

So, if you ask this gay rights’ advocate if we should challenge Prop 8 federally, the response you will receive is: We should challenge it at the city level, the county level, the state level, the federal level and most importantly at the social level.

The Fine Brothers Got it Right: Prop 8 Wasn’t About Marriage

May 26, 2009 By: jaysays Category: Commentary, Thought of the Gay

The Fine Bros. - Prop 8 SeriesIt’s likely not news that the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, which bans same-gender marriage in the state.  However, as previously discussed, the Court was actually asked the question, “Can a majority amend the Constitution to take away the rights of a minority?”

The Court answered that, indeed, the process to amend or revise the California Constitution does allow for civil rights to be taken away by a majority vote when such rights are not protected by the United States Constitution.  The Fine Brothers have been analyzing this scenario since Proposition 8 was approved by voters in November, 2008 with a series of web-based videos showing what would happen if other rights were voted upon.

Without further ado, the latest and last episode of The Fine Brother’s Prop 8 series:

California Prop 8 Took Civil Rights Away – but legally.

May 26, 2009 By: jaysays Category: LGBT News, Marriage Equality

Strauss v. Horton - Prop 8 - Tyrrany of the MajorityThe California Supreme Court released its opinion in Strauss v. Horton, today to a roar of dissatisfaction from marriage equality supporters.  Although the Court was not asked to rule on “gay marriage” directly, the process by which a constitutional revision/amendment can be made was questioned.  In so focusing on the procedural aspects of Proposition 8, the Court, almost wholly, lost touch with the humanitarian aspects of Proposition 8.

While 18,000 marriages sat waiting to hear whether or not they were “valid” in the eyes of the law, hundreds of thousands of future unborn marriages waited to hear whether they would be allowed to be made.  The California Supreme Court answered, essentially, that the will of the majority, tyrannical or not, supersedes the future rights of a minority:

Neither the language of the relevant constitutional provisions, nor our past cases, support the proposition that any of these rights [constitutional right to equal protection of the laws and equally long-standing and fundamental constitutional principles whose purpose is to protect often unpopular individuals and groups from overzealous or abusive treatment that at times may be condoned by a transient majority] is totally exempt from modification by a constitutional amendment adopted by a majority of the voters through the initiative process.

As I read the court’s opinion written by Justice C. J. George with concurring opinions from Justices Kennard Baxter, Chin and Corrigan, I keep looking for the “but.”  Seems the Court painted the opinion with language about the rights of people and long-standing principles to protect people from a “transient majority” while finding that majority has the right to tyrannize the minority class – so WHERE’S THE BUT!?

The only “but” came in the concurring and dissenting opinion written by Justice Moreno:

The rule the majority crafts today not only allows same-sex couples to be stripped of the right to marry that this court recognized in the Marriage Cases, it places at risk the state constitutional rights of all disfavored minorities. It weakens the status of our state Constitution as a bulwark of fundamental rights for minorities protected from the will of the majority.

Justice Moreno seems to be the only Justice that recognized that a “right” had been stripped from the people and focused his attentions, not on solely the procedures of stripping away rights, but that rights were indeed, taken away.

To put that another way, let’s assume that you suddenly lost your first amendment right to free speech.  Suddenly, you could no longer “say” what it was you wanted to say.  The Court comes back and says, “Sure, the majority took away your right, but they did so within the confines of the law.”  Is it solace that the “letter of the law” was followed to remove those rights?

So, to Justice Moreno for understanding that this is not just a revision issue, this is not just an amendment issue, this is a HUMAN RIGHTS issue, I tip my hat.