Saturday, October 25, 2014

Now John Eastman wants to fleece taxpayers

John Eastman
With John Eastman as its chairman and lead attorney, it's easy to see how National Organization for Marriage spent $700 thousand in legal fees to get back only $50 thousand. Now Eastman wants state officials to squander taxpayer money in a similar fashion for no discernible purpose whatsoever. According to the AP last Thursday;
John Eastman, chairman of the anti-gay marriage National Organization for Marriage, agreed with [Sarah] Warbelow [HRC legal director] that federal judges [in Kansas, South Carolina and Montana] almost certainly will rule to allow same-sex marriages. But Eastman urged state officials to continue to put up a legal fight until the Supreme Court decides the issue one way or the other.

"Until the Supreme Court decides it, this remains a viable option," Eastman said.

Once a federal judge rules on the issue, exactly what does Eastman want state officials to do at the expense of taxpayers? Go back to the appellate court that has already ruled in favor of equality? Then, when they dismiss the appeal, file for an en banc reconsideration? Then go back to the Supreme Court for an emergency stay that will be denied? For what purpose? Does Eastman suggest that these states hire him to write all of these briefs? He represented the North Carolina GOP controlled legislature, achieving nothing.

And none of this comes with any reasoning. There are no new arguments to support marriage discrimination. What exists are theoretical consequences that have not occurred in Massachusetts or anywhere else for that matter. NOM exists because the Catholic Church does not approve of same-sex marriage. They cannot nakedly impose the teachings of the Church on everyone by force of law so they have tied themselves up in knots and tortured logic to come up with reasons for resisting equality. Some very smart people have tragically looked colossally stupid as defenders of the faith.

If the Supreme Court does not get a case by the end of the year then it might not decide this issue until the summer of 2016. In fact, the Supreme Court may never have to decide this issue.

Apparently there is no satisfaction as great as beating a dead stalking horse.

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.