Wednesday, January 20, 2010

This one you're going to have to see to believe

So you know we have this Prop 8 trial going on here in California.

And so in-between getting my actual job done and working on the Haiti relief stuff we have going on here at All Saints Church AND keeping an eye on the weather forecasts of mudslides (heavy at times) happening in Southern California this week, I've been checking in on the "Prop 8 Trial Tracker" -- offering live blogging from the trial in San Francisco.

Lots of interesting stuff going on -- particularly today as "our" attorneys took on the LDS and Roman Catholic churches.

But what I'm writing about -- quickly here before I head out into the dark and stormy night -- is the weird twist of an inside story about the Prop 8 folks suing the Prop 8 Trial Tracker folks over the logo they're using on their website.

Here's the Trial Tracker logo:

And here's the logo from last fall's Yes on 8 campaign:

And what's the argument the Yes on 8 folks are using in their motion to get the Trial Tracker folks to drop the logo that looks ever-so-much-but-not-quite-like-theirs in an "in-your-face-we're-a-family-too" kind of way?

Wait for it.

They argue that the logo of a family made up of two woman and two children is “substantially indistinguishable” from a logo of a family made up of one man, one woman and two children.

As the Trial Tracker blog noted, "So, according to a lesbian family is “substantially indistinguishable” from a straight one? Hey, will you admit that in court? Pretty please, it would be mighty useful."

"We continue to be entertained by the Prop 8 attorneys simultaneously admitting that the two images of gay parents and straight parents are “substantially indistinguishable,” and yet failing to grasp that that the difference between the logos illuminates the core difference between their views and ours."

Honestly, folks -- you couldn't make this stuff up! Stay tuned ...


LGMarshall said...

Why can't we hold on to the time honored, Biblically True, definition of Marriage? That's a reasonable request. Marriage is One Man & One Woman, yes, backed up by the Biblical Example, Adam & Eve, the first created beings. Made to compliment each other. Made to become ONE. A Union of Flesh. A mutually compatible sexual union. Male & Female sex organs -- a pefect prophetic apparition. A Covenant with God. A Complimentary Design, for Offspring, to raise up in the Admonition of God's Laws. It doesn't make sense that homosexuals are asking to be part of something that is foreign to them. It's Not A Marriage. Even if you manage to change the culture's definition, It's Not A Marriage. You creative types, you must come up with a word that describes what you desire. But the word is not... Marriage. That is a word that has been set aside, by God, to mean 1 thing. One Man & One Woman. All of us must abide by Restrictions. Even Heterosexuals agree to certain limitations re Marriage. All must sacrifice and sublimate certain practices to come under the Blessing of Marriage. It's not easy. It's not politically correct. It's Marriage. You cannot coerce God. Here's a challenge, stop being so lazy and create your own definition, this is America! Stand up and be counted.


LG ... thanks for dropping by.

It's a busy day here so only time for a quick response:

I thank God that this is a nation where you can believe whatever you want about what the Bible says & means -- including what makes a "perfect prophetic apparition."

What you are not entitled to do (and that would be the point of this court case) is impose your theology on our constitution.

The arguments you make were made in 1967 against interracial marriage. Those arguments failed then and my hope is they will fail now.

Michele said...

LGMarshall --

"...the time honored, Biblically True, definition of Marriage [is] One Man & One Woman."

... I gather the Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob...) were doing it wrong?

uffda51 said...

This is why the "Yes on 8" folks don't want the trial televised. Their arguments make no sense, as Ted Olson has demonstrated. Their expensive televised ads, based on faleshoods, won't be shown in the courtroom.

There is no "Biblically True" definition of marriage. This has been refuted for decades, as well as at the trial, and, conveniently, in other posts on this very blog. The proof comes from people who prefer to study the Bible rather, than use it as a club. Using capital letters and repeating bromides with increasing intensity does not prove a case in a court of law.

(Word verification-bigat!)

MarkBrunson said...


Jacob married Rachel and Leah.

How many spouses do you have?

Abraham lied that his wife was his sister so Pharoah wouldn't kill him, then gave Sarah to sleep with Pharoah. Abraham also had sex with Haggar so that he could have a son.

Biblical definition?

Isaac's wife was chosen by a family servant. Of course, Isaac grew up in such a dysfunctional family, I doubt it seemed strange to him.

Who chose your spouse?

If they did it right, you people are still doing it wrong.

Just like your theology.

MarkBrunson said...

Sorry, Michele, I just wanted to expand on what you were saying.

Clearly, LGMarshall has little or no actual knowledge of the scriptures he/she/it promulgates as absolute.

SCG said...

LG aside, I am highly amused at the thought of a lesbian couple as "substantially indistinguishable" in one courtroom argument and yet will bring about the downfall of civilization in another.
Students at Florida State University are planning to do a "dramatic reading" of the trial transcripts as captured on the Prop 8 Trial Tracker. I think it qualifies as "theater of the absurd".