Monday, March 10, 2014

FRC's Peter Sprigg redefines marriage law

Peter Sprigg
Family Research Council is an anti-gay hate group. Peter Sprigg, an ordained Baptist minister, is FRC's "expert" on all things gay. Today, Sprigg is the author of “Marriage on Trial: State Laws Defining Marriage as the Union of One Man and One Woman Are Valid under the Constitution of the United States.” Rev. Sprigg asserts that the decisions by federal courts in states like Utah, Oklahoma, Kentucky and Virginia are all wrong.

Allow me to cut to the chase. In United States v. Windsor Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, opined:
In order to assess the validity of that intervention it is necessary to discuss the extent of the state power and authority over marriage as a matter of history and tradition. State laws defining and regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967) ; but, subject to those guarantees, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393, 404 (1975).

Therefore, the issue is whether or not state marriage bans violate the constitutional rights of gay couples. Federal judges have ruled that they do because they deny equal protection and due process. These rulings are consistent with the precedence established in Loving as cited by Kennedy.

Sprigg makes numerous vacuous arguments including "responsible procreation" which has been repeatedly dismissed by every court in which the argument has been made as rubbish. Simply stated the marriages of gay couples have no effect on the marriages of heterosexual couples or the children that those marriages produce, if any.

I am only going to quote one passage of Sprigg's gibberish. You can read it in its entirety if you have some brain cells to spare. Sprigg cannot help himself:
Homosexual attractions can be changed, although it may not be easy; homosexual behavior, however, is voluntary and can be changed at will.
Aside from the abundant crackpottery, this has nothing to do with equal protection or due process. Sprigg's goal is to suggest that gays are not a "suspect class" but that ship sailed.

Striking down Section 3 of DOMA as unconstitutional in Windsor v. United States, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held sexual orientation to be a quasi-suspect classification, and determined that laws that classify people on such basis should be subject to intermediate scrutiny. That's not going to change.

Ultimately this is a last ditch effort to claim that up is down and black is white when it comes to marriage equality. Sprigg is not only one of the reasons that FRC is designated as a hate group by SPLC but, to put it crudely, he doesn't know is ass from a hole in the ground.


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.