On the other side of the coin, more and more rightwing conservatives and religious extremists are muttering about "civil disobedience" and revolting against the government. Here's born-again Christianist and convicted Watergate felon Chuck Colson, mouthing about the Manhattan Declaration, which among other things states, "No one has a civil right to have a non-marital relationship treated as a marriage."
And here's devout Catholic, serial adulterer, and open-marriage advocate Newt Gigrich making a threat against the Supreme Court on his campaign website:
The Constitution of the United States begins with 'We the People'; it does not begin with 'We the Judges'. Federal judges need to take heed of that fact. Federal judges are substituting their own political views for the constitutional right of the people to make judgments about the definition of marriage. Should the Supreme Court fail to heed the disastrous lessons of its own history and attempt to impose its will on the marriage debate in this country by affirming today’s Ninth Circuit decision, it will bear the burden of igniting a constitutional crisis of the first order.Matt Staver, head of the rightwing Liberty Counsel legal group, is on board the same train of thought:
This is a travesty of justice and it undermines the legitimacy of the judiciary. When judges find that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, it's absolutely absurd. . . . . I think this is the unraveling of the actual judiciary. It is the very seeds, as Thomas Jefferson said, of tyranny.Ditto Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and just about everybody else in the GOP, ranting and raving about yesterday's ruling taking away the rights of millions of (straight and homophobic) American citizens to enact discrimination into law. I suppose if the citizens of a state voted to reintroduce slavery, all these God-fearing, patriotic Republicans would likewise demand that the people's vote be the last word on the subject, and no "activist judges" allowed to intervene there, either.
Which brings me to a question I want to ask my truckbuddies: what about your nearest and dearest? Where do they really stand right now, in the face of an incipient fascist-theocratic revolution? Do they really have your back? Or are they just tolerating you, for sentimental reasons?
Sure, Granny or dear old Aunt Sally always gives your partner a big smile and a hug around the neck when the two of you visit at Christmas, and she always serves his favorite peach cobbler.
But the rest of the year, does Granny ever open her sweet little mouth to say one good word for the gays in her Sunday-school senior class? Does Aunt Sally or Uncle Joe ever take up for the gays when somebody makes a belittling remark at the Garden Club or on the golf course?
All those people who say they love you - oh, and your, uh, friend too, of course! - do they really, actually, truly mean it?
Or are they just being nice? There is a difference. A big, fat difference.
Love is not what you say. It's what you do.
If you want to find out, just try something simple like asking them to forward Ellen's video, or something like that, to their uptight, goody-goody Republican church friends, and see what their reaction is.
You'll find out quick enough, all right. Just listen to the excuses that come tumbling out of their mouths.
