Monday, April 6, 2015

Can ANYONE make sense of the Lopez/Klein amicus brief - Did ROL make peace with his mother?

Robert Oscar Lopez and B.N. Klein aka (Rivka Edelman aka B.N. Newmark) have filed an amicus brief in the marriage cases before the Supreme Court. Neither of these people are exactly paragons of mental health and they don't seem to make much sense. Both of these folks are unable to separate the issues of same-sex marriage and same-sex parenting.

Lopez seems to have changed his reasoning. In a prior brief  (before the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals) he claimed:
My interest in these cases … stems from my experience as a child raised by a lesbian with the help of her female partner for seventeen years, and from my experience as an outspoken university professor who challenged the social-science consensus that supposedly proved there were “no disadvantages” to being raised by gay or lesbian parents.
The new brief depicts his childhood quite differently:
I was raised by a Puerto Rican lesbian mother in a lifelong relationship with her female partner, who acted as a de facto co-guardian and remains an important part of my life. My interest in supporting Respondents in these cases stems from my experience working with other children of gay parents — as well as adoptees, children of third-party reproduction procedures, and children of divorce.
The first brief is based on his allegedly crappy childhood while the new brief is solely based on the allegedly crappy childhoods of others.

According to Klein:
My interest in supporting Respondents in these cases is based on the experience of my childhood with a Jewish lesbian mother and her partners in the gay community in New York State in the 1970’s and 80’s …
She is claiming that her experiences as a child, going back 40 years, are somehow germane to modern day same-sex marriage.  Seriously?

Things don't get much better:
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

The legalization of gay marriage may come from a sincere desire to offer equal protections to same-sex couples and their families. Yet in truth the effect of legalizing gay marriage is discriminatory against two groups: (1) children of gays (or “COGs”) who will turn into a suspect class as a practical result of legalized gay marriage, and (2) women. For this reason, the Court should treat the legalization of same-sex marriage as the legalization of discrimination.
Don't ask because I would not know where to begin to explain this fantasy. But there is more:
ARGUMENT
ROBERT OSCAR LOPEZ’S ARGUMENT
[ … ]

Children of gay parents stand to lose significant legal protections if same-sex marriage is legalized. I further ask, respectfully, that the Court recognize that new material is being provided in this case by children of gay parents, never seen before by the Members of the Court; that this material submitted from myself, B.N. Klein, Denise Shick, Dawn Stefanowicz, Katy Faust, and Heather Barwick is more than mere personal or anecdotal reflections but rather a body of scholarly work by educated and largely professionalized COGs with a history of research and community engagement with many other COGs;
Again I am at a loss. It seems impossible to explain how children lose legal protections if their parents marry. That is contradicted by a huge body of family law not to mention our friends at the Internal Revenue Service.
B.N. KLEIN’S ARGUMENT
[ … ]

Legalizing same-sex marriage will create a suspect class of children denied unlawfully their inalienable right to their mother and father, and the inheritances associated with their origins. The effects on children will also extend to disparate negative impacts on women as a class, since women’s losses will be greater than men’s losses in the broken bonds that result from legalizing gay marriage.
I would not know where to begin. I suspect that briefs like this get spiked by clerks and are never actually read by the justices. Who knows?

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.