Thursday, December 3, 2015

A whining Bobby swings for the non-existent fences

Robert Oscar Lopez

Thursday, Robert Oscar Lopez has been given some space on Witherspoon Institute's blog to bitch about marriage equality. Lopez is wed to the mysterious belief that his outrage (born of neurosis) is persuasive and game changing. According to Bobby, the Court got it all wrong. He blames Justice Kennedy almost exclusively:
Obergefell v. Hodges was decided by five robed justices, but only one man both wrote and signed his name to the majority opinion. The four concurring justices chose to concur silently, adding nothing more than their signatures. This case is the brainchild of one man. That man and his state of mind—indeed, his character—matter.
Apparently the fact that judges wear robes is important. Bobby is in no position to challenge anyone's state of mind and certainly not their character. The implication is that because of a ruling that Bobby doesn't like the jurist is of low character and questionable mental hygiene. Bobby needs to install some mirrors in his home.
Recently, Justice Anthony Kennedy dismissed conscientious objectors to Obergefell, such as Kim Davis, by pointing out that very few Christian judges resigned when the Nazis imposed the Nuremberg Laws on Germany. Leaving aside how offensive it is to compare gay marriage supporters to Nazis, Justice Kennedy’s statements point to a troubling lack of coherence in the man’s thinking. He disregards the entire ethos of Henry David Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience.
Kim Davis? Kim fucking Davis? Kim Davis was not a citizen choosing to disobey a law in order to bring attention to some injustice. Kim Davis is a public servant, an elected official inflicting her flavor of Christianity on the public to deny service to taxpayers she was paid to serve. That's not a conscientious objector. That is an unconscious objection. And what makes Bobby think that a federal judge is compelled to consider the writings of Thoreau?

Later on Bobby goes off with his band of Daddy-issue crackpots:
Why Didn’t Justice Kennedy Listen to the Children of Gays and Lesbians?

The evidence Justice Kennedy cited in Obergefell also raises questions about whether he fully understood and impartially considered the evidence before him in that case. Although it was handed down in June 2015, everything in Justice Kennedy’s Obergefell opinion refers to the type of evidence that had been submitted in previous federal court cases. The information the opinion draws on in assessing the impact of same-sex marriage on children seems frozen in time, as if Justice Kennedy were stuck in January 2013, back when briefs were submitted in the Windsor case.

In January 2013, the only widely known research that countered the “consensus” on same-sex parenting was the embattled article by Mark Regnerus in Social Science Research from July 2012. At that time, moreover, there were almost no dissenting children of gays who had spoken out against gay parenting, as I have. Back in 2013, we weren’t yet organized enough to submit briefs to the Supreme Court.

But in 2015, B.N. Klein, Katy Faust, Heather Barwick, Denise Shick, Dawn Stefanowicz, and I—all children of LGBT parents—did submit amicus briefs. Given the centrality of the supposed interests of children raised by gay couples in Justice Kennedy’s decision, the new information about same-sex parenting, which emerged between the 2013 Windsor and 2015 Obergefell decisions, was absolutely crucial. Since race and gender are often brought up when the Fourteenth Amendment is discussed, it is noteworthy that the six authors of these briefs included five women and a non-heterosexual male of color. Hence, we were speaking to concerns about the Fourteenth Amendment as members of protected classes. Yet there is no sign at all that Justice Kennedy or the other justices read our briefs.
Aside from the fact that Regnerus has been thoroughly discredited, this is all irrelevant to the issue of whether or not gays should be permitted to marry. Moreover, none of Bobby's friends were raised by a married gay couple and it comprises a handful of the many thousands of children who have been reared by gay parents. The simplest explanation is that a few people had crappy parents. The many thousands who are just fine with their gay parents deserved to have married gay parents. Their interests outweighed the crackpots.
Between 2013 and 2015, new studies were published by Douglas Allen of Simon Frasier University and D. Paul Sullins of Catholic University, which drew from broad population samples and debunked the “no harm” consensus of same-sex parenting. Moreover, in Jephthah’s Daughters: Innocent Casualties in the War for Family “Equality” B.N. Klein and I provided 550 endnotes and documented seventy confirmed cases of same-sex parenting in which there were clear losses and harms done to children. That book was published in February 2015, and cited in the March 27, 2015, brief.
Allen is not a social scientist. He is an economist (and a Defender of the Faith). He takes liberties with logic to achieve the result that he wants. Let's get Paul Sullins' honorific correct. This Father Paul Sullins. The end notes on a blog of Bobby and Klein (or is it Brittany Newmark, or is it Rivka Edelman) are irrelevant.

Much of what follows is whiny  nonsense that is best summarized as “the Supreme Court didn't listen to me.” Why should they? This opus eventually concludes:
Gay marriage was always a personal issue for the people demanding it, which is why debates about gay marriage became so exceptionally emotional. Justice Kennedy’s personal shortcomings and the failure of the five majority justices to honor their duties and review relevant new evidence matter. I hope attention will be paid to the latter.
Personal shortcomings? Bobby better get over it. Marriage equality is the law of the land. They either need a constitutional amendment or a case to make its way through the federal courts. Both are highly unlikely.

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.