MailToBlog - An e-mail a day keeps the fascists at bay.

Proud Members of the Reality-Based Community

Monday, March 14, 2005

Extremist Wingnut Columnist Needs Lesson

Poor Michael Gaynor of A California judge declared California's discriminatory marriage law unconstitutional. And Gaynor's in such a homophobic rage that he doesn't know Republicans from Democrats.

In his article, SECULAR EXTREMISM STRIKES AGAIN, he shows us exactly how clueless he is when he calls California's Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer a "loony leftist". Kramer is a Catholic Republican and the appointee of a Republican governor.

Gaynor then goes on and on showing us just how much he hates the US Constitution and how little he understands it.

Take Action:
Send an e-mail to Michael Gaynor. Tell him he should check his facts before making such a fool of himself. And while you're at it, ask him why he hates the US Constution.


  • At 8:47 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I know Rich Kramer. I went to Law School with him. He was then, and remains, a brilliant scholar. He is exactly what the judiciary needs in a judge.... intelligent!!!

  • At 8:52 PM, Blogger Mike in Texas said…

    Anon, if you haven't yet read the judgement, you can find it here. It's very well done. It takes each of the anti-gay arguments and shreds them to pieces.

  • At 9:29 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Mike in Texas: I did read the opinion. It was very well-crafted. I commented on it on AmericaBlog.

  • At 8:20 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I sent this Michael Gaynor an email--told him to get his facts straight and that he's a bigot---this was his response to me--- @@@A nominal Catholic. A reprehensible Republican. Namecaller OOOHHHH!!!! BIG MAN, Mr. Gaynor!!

  • At 11:13 AM, Blogger dadanation said…

    my e-mail to Mr Gaynor:

    15 March 2005

    Dear Mr. Gaynor:

    Regarding your column yesterday (March 14,2005 "Secular Extremism Strikes Again") I hope that you are doing well and not feeling too beat up by people who have been e-mailing you over your blatantly stupid and obviously inaccurate depiction of Judge Richard Kramer as a "loony leftist." Just so you are absolutely clear, Judge Kramer is a practicing Catholic, a Republican and was appointed to the bench by former Governor (and Republican) Pete Wilson.

    If you in fact are married, you would be wise to see who is the issuing party of that contract -- my bet is that -- if you are legally married -- it would be the state in which you were married, and not the religious institution where you worship. The marriage contract is a state-issued, state-sanctioned contract. Plain and simple. Those are the facts.

    If it weren't so appallingly obvious that you have little regard for your fellow citizens, I would suggest you review the language of the landmark California Supreme Court decision (in 1948) or the US Supreme Court decision (in 1967) which declared the ban on inter-racial marriage to be unconstitutional. I suggest these two cases for two every specific reasons:

    1) companionship and kindred spirits with like-minded individuals who decried the court's decisions then, believing inter-racial marriage was a sin, an abomination, wrong, etc.; and
    2) because you could learn a lesson or two about how justice eventually triumphs over injustice, even if the polling data is not yet in synch with the decision (when the US Supreme Court ruled the ban unconstitutional, a majority of Americans opposed inter-racial marriages).

    As a famous US Senator once said (in paraphrase), you have every right to your own opinion but you don't have the right to twist the facts to justify your opinion. If you need to invent truth to make your point, perhaps your point is not worth making. You owe Judge Kramer an apology.


  • At 11:38 AM, Blogger dadanation said…

    gaynor wrote me back:

    @@@I am aware that's he a CINO. And Governor Wilson is hardly the only one to make judicial appointments that proved unworthy

    my reply back to gaynor:

    Mr Gaynor:

    Per your reply to my e-mail, are you suggesting that the Supreme Court justices appointed to the bench who ruled in 1947 or in 1968 were wrong in their rulings? Or "activist?"

    By CINO I assume you mean "Catholic" In Name Only," which would be both a speculative comment on your part (as you clearly do not know Judge Kramer) as well as one that is inconsistent with Christianity ("Judge not lest ye be judged" springs to mind right away).

    I gather that you have yet to either print a retraction/clarification about your misrepresentation of Judge Kramer (as a "loony leftist") or that one is forthcoming. You wrote something that was factually inaccurate. That deserves to be corrected. Lying, no matter how it is couched, is lying.

  • At 12:08 PM, Blogger dadanation said…

    gaynor wroe back again. i need to write this up as a diary in dkos.

    btw, thanks for the e-mail link to write him. i'll reference your blog in my diary.


  • At 8:41 AM, Blogger Mike in Texas said…

    Thanks for providing all that feedback, Anon and Dadanation. It's really quite funny. And thanks to dadanation for spreading the word about this blog.

    And,BTW, I have a question for Anon.

    After thinking about some of the things you posted in here I started wondering if you might have known my good (and sorely missed) friend, Jerry Krieger.

  • At 8:48 AM, Blogger Mike in Texas said…

    I have to laugh at the "Catholic in name only" comment. Obviously Judge Kramer has no intention to enter into a same-sex marriage. So what's this guy whining about anyway? He seems to think that RC dogma requires its members to impose their religious beliefs on everyone via legislation.


Post a Comment

<< Home