Friday, June 6, 2014

"What's Coming Next?" NOM mythology of course

Brian S. Brown - National Organization for Marriage
National Organization for Marriage asks “What's Coming Next?” According to Brian Brown, the answer is not in a Time Magazine article titled “The Transgender Tipping Point.” NOM does not provide a link to the unpaid preview. Nor do they mention that the piece was written by Laverne Cox a cast member of Orange is the New Black. Perhaps Brown did not want to feel obligated to use the correct pronouns. According to Brown:
In it, the author argues that the fight for marriage is over... that the Supreme Court has already decided everything... and that the next great "civil rights" movement "poised to challenge long-held cultural norms and beliefs" is the transgender movement, which is "emerging from the margins to fight for an equal place in society."

While I do not subscribe to the idea that the fight for marriage equality is over (not until the Supreme Court says so), I happen to agree with her regarding transgender rights. However, what really pisses off Mr. Brown is the idea that he has already lost. It's their greatest fear because it cuts off the money supply. Brown continues:
First of all, it's incredibly lazy journalism at best and partisan ideology at worst to say that the fight is over "almost one year after the Supreme Court ruled that Americans were free to marry the person they loved, no matter their sex..."

The Supreme Court never ‘ruled that Americans were free to marry the person they loved, no matter their sex...' In fact, when asked to do so by celebrity-lawyers Ted Olsen and David Bois [sic], the Justices refused.
If Cox wrote that then she is incorrect. I have not read the piece. The Supreme Court ruled that Section 3 of DOMA was history. Nevertheless, in doing so I believe that Ms. Cox will ultimately be correct. As for Mr. Brown whether or not Olsen and Boies (the correct spelling) are celebrity-lawyers is irrelevant. They were represented by Charles Cooper who is every bit as well known. More so since he disclosed that his daughter is gay.

The Justices most certainly did not refuse. They never got to the question because the supporters of California Proposition 8 lacked standing; They could not litigate to defend a constitutional amendment in lieu of state officials who declined to do so, something that was within their authority. Brown explains further:
What they did rule in Windsor v United States is that marriage has always been the purview of the states to regulate, and the US government must respect a states' definition of marriage.
Mr. Brown knows full well that the ruling in United States v. Windsor says that states are free to regulate marriage providing that they do not interfere with the constitutional rights of citizens. Here is the exact quote:
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).
No matter how many times Brown is corrected he'll blather the same bullshit because he lacks wit, as well as an argument that is intellectually and factually honest. But there is more from Justice Brown:
Sadly, federal judges across the country have been misinterpreting the Windsor ruling from last summer, twisting it to throw out state marriage laws and constitutional amendments. Soon, these many cases are going to wind up before the Supreme Court — and likely decided within the next 12 months.
Really? All those judges are wrong because the Catholic Church doesn't like same-sex marriage? They have all reached the same conclusion that same-sex marriage bans violate equal protection and due process and, thus, do not “respect the constitutional rights of persons.” What part did they get wrong I wonder.

Then, of course, Brian Brown goes into send-us-money-marriage-march-reuben-diaz-a-million-buses-send-us-more-money $blah $blah $blah.

They can bring a thousand clown cars to Washington DC in June and it won't make a whit of difference. If the Court bases decisions on public opinion then they know that it favors equality by growing margins irrespective of the size of an organized demonstration by a religious pressure group. But heck, if it's worth schlepping to DC to hear Huckabee say what you already know Huckabee is going to say, then go for it. And don't forget to send some of your money NOM's way.  John Eastman's kids' summer camp is expensive.
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.