VA Family Foundation on State’s Marriage Ban

The Family Foundation, Virginia’s resident anti-gay “pro-family” group, is verklempt over a federal judge overturning that state’s ban on same-sex marriage and they’re making some amusingly absurd arguments about it. Like they think it has something to do with Valentine’s Day.

“The timing of this decision certainly calls into question Judge Wright Allen’s objectivity,” a Friday morning statement from the group stated. “This rushed release just prior to Valentine’s Day reeks of political show, making her ruling less a legal argument and more a press release. It’s disappointing that a federal judge would so blatantly expose her personal political agenda at the expense of not just marriage, but our entire social fabric.”

I love that phrase “social fabric.” What the hell does it mean? I’ve never heard even an attempt to define it. It’s one of those catchphrases that is utterly meaningless. It really means “this is where something meaningful should go, but I don’t have anything meaningful to say so I’ll just throw it in here.”

“Regardless of one’s stance on marriage, the people of Virginia were disenfranchised by this ruling as our voice and our vote that amended our Constitution have been rendered meaningless by a single federal judge with the assistance of our own Attorney General,” the Family Foundation statement read. “Protecting a timeless institution for the well-being of children was the will of the overwhelming majority of Virginians and this ruling denies this important state interest as it places the desires of adults over the outcomes of children.”

This argument that voters are “disenfranchised” when the courts overturn laws that they pass is inane and it shows just how little regard they have for the Constitution they claim to revere. Judicial review with the complete independence of the courts was one of the smartest things the founding fathers put into the Constitution. It’s one of the bedrock principles of the Constitution, designed to prevent the majority from imposing tyrannical laws on everyone else.

And of course, the moment the courts overturn laws that they oppose that argument about disenfranchisement magically disappears. Did you hear the screams of horror over “judicial activism” and the “will of the people” when the Supreme Court overturned DC’s handgun ban? Yeah, I didn’t either.

"It's "The Little Drummer Boy" that does it for me."

Bakker Declares Victory in Mythical War ..."
"A few years ago I was wished a merry Christmas by a man wearing earlocks ..."

Bakker Declares Victory in Mythical War ..."
"Me previously:At some point conservative Christians may stop defending Roy Moore’s predatory behavior. Artor responds:No, ..."

And Two More Women Come Forward ..."
"He'll probably revive the War on Christmas rhetoric next year, knowing his viewers will likely ..."

Bakker Declares Victory in Mythical War ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • http://howlandbolton.com richardelguru

    “social fabric”

    Surely what you make your party clothes out of?

  • StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return!

    verklempt?

  • matty1

    What outcomes for children? Seriously what does gay marriage do to children? I suppose I can see that discovering a parent is gay would have an effect but that is a separate issue. Anyone who is likely to get gay married in the near future probably already has a same sex partner who their family including children know about.

  • http://www.gregory-gadow.net Gregory in Seattle

    I expect that the exact same group would have said the exact same thing after the Loving v. Virginia was handed down. That was the 1968 Supreme Court decision that overturned antimiscegenation laws. Imagine with me….

    “The timing of this decision certainly calls into question the Justices’ objectivity,” a Friday morning statement from the group stated. “This rushed release during June, the traditional month for marriage, reeks of political show, making this ruling less a legal argument and more a press release. It’s disappointing that the Supreme Court would so blatantly expose their personal political agenda at the expense of not just marriage, but our entire social fabric.”

    “Regardless of one’s stance on marriage, the people of Virginia were disenfranchised by this ruling as our voice and our vote that amended our Constitution have been rendered meaningless by a tiny group of federal judges,” the Family Foundation statement read. “Protecting a timeless institution for the well-being of children was the will of the overwhelming majority of Virginians and this ruling denies this important state interest as it places the desires of adults over the outcomes of children.”

    It is pretty scary, how little needs to be changed.

  • doublereed

    Where did you get that Loving v. Virginia quote from?

  • sh3baproject

    they still use social fabric? equality fabric is better.

  • matty1

    Personally I prefer cotton

  • John Pieret

    “Social Fabric” = “the way things used to be when WE could push everyone else … nigg … people of color, sluts women, fags gays, whores of Babylonn Roman Cath-o-licks, etc. … around and get away with it without anyone mentioning the Constitution.

  • http://www.gregory-gadow.net Gregory in Seattle

    @doublereed #5 – Assuming you are asking me, those “quotes” are just modifications of what was quoted from FF’s press release.

  • alanb

    I’m not what social fabric is, but it better not be woven of two kinds of material.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    They see getting gay marriage on your social fabric at it staining the material a fractionally different color.

    What they haven’t noticed is that the social fabric is already a bunch of different colors, so adding another is, or should be, no real issue. At worst it gets paisley on tartan.*

     

    * And you know what that leads to. That’s right: hippie Scotsman.

  • eamick

    @2: “Verklempt” is Yiddish for overwhelmed or flustered, from the German “verklemmt”.

  • eric

    Re: “social fabric,” its not just those two words – the entire sentence doesn’t make sense. Here it is again:

    It’s disappointing that a federal judge would so blatantly expose her personal political agenda at the expense of not just marriage, but our entire social fabric.”

    She exposes her agenda at marriage’s expense? What? I’m pretty sure they meant to say that she pushed her politcal agenda into law, but what they actually said reads more like “oh noes, her free speech right to tell us what she thinks has hurt marriage.”

  • cptdoom

    Given that the judge in question belongs to an anti-gay church that has a strong stance against same-sex marriage, I’m guessing her “personal political agenda” involves following the Constitution and treating others as equals.

  • Olav

    Ed:

    I love that phrase “social fabric.” What the hell does it mean? I’ve never heard even an attempt to define it. It’s one of those catchphrases that is utterly meaningless.

    I agree it is a cliché that is abused past the point of being useless. However there is originally some meaning to it: it evokes an image of society as a system of interwoven relationships and interests. Pull one strand from the fabric and the cloth becomes weaker.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    Olav “I agree it is a cliché that is abused past the point of being useless. However there is originally some meaning to it: it evokes an image of society as a system of interwoven relationships and interests. Pull one strand from the fabric and the cloth becomes weaker.”

    Oddly, it’s the Christian Right that’s pulling the thread we’re trying to put in, out.

  • abb3w

    @0, Ed Brayton

    I love that phrase “social fabric.” What the hell does it mean? I’ve never heard even an attempt to define it. It’s one of those catchphrases that is utterly meaningless.

    Linguistically, “social fabric” seems a far from exotic metaphor, where the structural pattern of social connections between people in a society are compared to the structural connection of threads in a fabric. Poking Google and Google books, it seems to have been introduced in a translation of Jacques Necker‘s 1792 “An Essay on the True Principles of Executive Power in Great States”, though (since I can’t turn up on-line the original French version) it’s possible William Laurence Brown‘s 1793 “Essay on the Natural Equality of Men” introduced an idiom adopted by a later translator of Necker. It’s a philosophical idiom roughly contemporary with the “social contract” (about a generation later), and like the “social machine” was apparently considered a metaphor sufficiently self-obvious to not require explicit definition.

    While this particular use by the Family Foundation is moronic (the shape of the fabric may change by adding such new threads, but doing so neither cuts the existing ones nor rends the fabric), mocking them for the idiom itself grates on my nerves, seeming reminiscent of how some ultra-libertarians reject the notion of the “social contract” because they never signed in blood a copy on parchment.

  • http://www.facebook.com/joseph.stricklin Sansgawd

    “when the Supreme Court overturned DC’s handgun ban?”

    Whoa! Whoa! There is a big difference in guns and gays. Guns don’t kill people…Gays do!…and they kill marriage and special-magic-society-fabric used to make shrouds to hide bigotry.

  • Emu Sam

    Culture. Mesh of interacting people. Tight weave in some places, very loose in others, with a million points sewn together in a great big lumpy ball, all of it depending on the rest to not fall apart entirely but nevertheless being pulled apart by itself. Probably fractal. Hyperbolic in both senses. Tempted to throw in a quantum, just for fun.

  • abb3w

    Incidentally, a bit more Google-fu turns up Necker’s “Du pouvoir exécutif dans les grands États” in the original French. Since in it’s native language the phrasing “les bases fondamentales de l’ordonnance sociale” is more literally “the fundamental basis of the social order“, it appears the idiom was added by a subsequent translator after Brown‘s sermon popularized it.

    Regardless, it’s been around a while.

    @19, Emu Sam:

    Tempted to throw in a quantum, just for fun.

    Don’t make me hunt you down for public vivisection pour encourager les autres.