Friday, March 11, 2016

FRC's Travis Weber seems spectacularly confused

Travis Weber
At Family Research Council's blog Friday, their Travis Weber wrote a piece titled “ Governor Intends to Ignore Same-Sex Marriage Ruling—Will He Be Chastised?” He goes on to write:
A federal district judge in Puerto Rico recently ruled that Obergefell v. Hodges does not overturn Puerto Rico’s marriage laws because the constitutional protections at issue in that case do not apply to an unincorporated territory like Puerto Rico the same way they do to the states.

Puerto Rico’s governor responded by indicating he will not abide by the ruling: “I will respect what has been determined by higher hierarchy courts that, fortunately, order a very different procedure... The fundamental right to equal marriage has been validated and ordered by the federal Supreme Court and by the appeals court in Boston.”

Weber is getting his quote for the National Catholic Reporter. The governor correctly referenced the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit which is responsible for Puerto Rico and has already ruled in this matter. Weber continues:
Predictably, the ruling is being dismissed, and the governor’s defiance celebrated, by same-sex marriage advocates.
It is being dismissed because a higher court and the Supreme Court have rendered it moot. He continues:
But according to these same advocates, federal court orders are supposed to be sacrosanct ground, as we were told last year when the Alabama Supreme Court differed from federal courts in articulating the requirements of the Constitution on this issue.
There is no “but” here. The ruling of a federal court is binding unless overturned by a higher court. The situations, currently in Puerto Rico and previously in Alabama, are dissimilar. Later on:
Idaho’s governor certainly was not celebrated in such an instance, and he didn’t even flatly disregard the ruling in that case, but merely disagreed with and appealed it.
Now this case is somewhat similar to Puerto Rico in that it had already been ruled on by the Ninth Circuit. Otter appealed to the Supreme Court. He was subjected to criticism primary because of the assertions in the state's petition.
… this is the only case now available to the [Supreme] Court where any public officials have mounted a truly vigorous policy defense of the man-woman understanding and definition of marriage—including an explanation of its salutary effects on the children of heterosexual couples, and why such a definition satisfies any level of constitutional scrutiny.
This is the thoroughly discredited gays-are-crappy-parents argument. Moreover, as in Puerto Rico, the governor was obeying the orders of the controlling court. Weber remarkably continues:
Indeed, when federal district courts consistently ruled in favor of same-sex marriage over the last several years, their rulings were celebrated and regarded as law by same-sex marriage supporters. If so, why is the recent federal court decision out of Puerto Rico not law?
One more time. Because higher courts have already ruled differently than the district court. It's not the same thing.

Weber is trying to demonstrate hypocrisy that does not exist. When this guy first joined Family Research Council (a designated hate group) he seemed pretty smart. Apparently working for FRC has some effect on cognition and critical thinking.

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.