Monday, December 16, 2013

Poor Robby

Princeton professor Robert George gives an interview in the National Review celebrating the "anniversary" of his book, What is Marriage? George is the co-founder of National Organization for Marriage and the Witherspoon Institute. This book was part of a coordinated strategy to influence the Supreme Court last summer. In conjunction with the book, Witherspoon financed the thoroughly discredited study by Mark Regnerus that purports to prove, according to National Organization for Marriage, that gay couples are terrible parents. In addition to the book, co-authors Ryan T. Anderson and Sherif Girgis gave innumerable interviews and penned innumerable polemics about the evils of gay marriage.

The book was cited by Justice Alito in his dissenting opinion in United States v. Windsor. However, that was the wrong justice:

National Review:
How do you feel the article and book have influenced the national debate about gay marriage? 
I wish I could say that it shaped the opinion for the majority in the Windsor decision (which invalidated a section of the federal Defense of Marriage Act). It didn’t. In fact, Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion for the majority failed to address our arguments at all. Kennedy simply assumed the validity of something like the revisionist view of marriage, without defending it or addressing the criticisms that we and others have made of it.
No. Justice Kennedy was more interested in due process and equal protection than the religious theory that was contrived for legal purposes stating that the purpose for marriage is to crank out children. Kennedy wrote:
By seeking to injure the very class New York seeks to protect, DOMA violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government. The Constitution’s guarantee of equality “must at the very least mean that a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot” justify disparate treatment of that group. Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U. S. 528–535. DOMA cannot survive under these principles. Its unusual deviation from the tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of marriage operates to deprive same-sex couples of the benefits and responsibilities that come with federal recognition of their marriages. This is strong evidence of a law having the purpose and effect of disapproval of a class recognized and protected by state law. DOMA’s avowed purpose and practical effect are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States.
George is befuddled that Kennedy wasn't baffled by their bullshit. Their simple equation;

Marriage = Procreation
Gays cannot procreate
ergo gays cannot marry

falls apart when subjected to the simplest of questions like; "So then we should deny marriage to senior citizens?" This all makes Robby George very sad. Sniff, sniff.
Enhanced by Zemanta

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.