The God who created the universe also is the creator of the institution of marriage. It is so important to Him in his plan for humanity that he included it among his very first instructions to us: "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh" (Genesis 2: 24).That's lovely but the issue of civil marriage in this country was settled by the Supreme Court over a year ago. What is the point? Well, the point is this (later on). NOM needs money (or at least Brown needs to fund a paycheck):
NOM began our critical Summer Membership Drive on July 22nd. As of this morning, we've crossed the three-week halfway point of our drive and we have only received 309 contributions from our members.Donate now and so on. Maybe they should organize a telethon. “Please do not let little Fada die. Your contributions will allow it to live!” They can have a gaggle of priests answering phones and dispensing prayers in exchange for contributions. For entertainment, well… that's when things get a bit tricky. Brian Brown can always demonstrate his proficiency with a kazoo I suppose.
I imagine that Anthony Kennedy, the Supreme Court justice who wrote the opinion a year ago redefining marriage, will be laughing out loud to himself realizing that the most passionate supporters of marriage — NOM's members who love the Lord and who revere what He created — seem to be giving up.What kind of bizarre fantasy is that? I do not think that Justice Kennedy is keeping score. Nor would he consider Obergefell v. Hodges a test of will between himself and God. For all Brown knows, Justice Kennedy might be more devout than the late Justice Scalia who, after all, was a fierce proponent of capital punishment.
Who could blame Anthony Kennedy if he thinks that God lost and he won?
The fundamental understanding that is not appreciated by Brian Brown is that our judges are constitutionally required to divorce their personal religious beliefs from their rulings. Moreover, who the hell is Brown to speak for God? What gives him the idea that he possesses either the right or the knowledge to do so?
And why would Justice Kennedy be laughing? Only someone with a severe persecution complex would believe that people who disagree with him are laughing at him. Of course I disagree with Brian Brown and I laugh at him almost every day as do many other people so perhaps his belief is not entirely unfounded.
Later in the day:The next missive was titled “Not Good....”
NOM began our critical Summer Membership Drive on July 22nd. As of this morning, we've crossed the three week halfway point of our drive — the halfway point — and we have only received 309 contributions from our members. We're only 20% toward our goal of receiving 1,500 membership contributions of at least $35.If you have been following along, (and if you believe Brown's numbers) that means that 53
They are not terribly consistent with the (rotting) FADA chew toy which by now is infested with maggots. On July 13 they proclaimed: "Big Win for FADA Today!" Then Brown must have figured out that the sponsors poisoned their own bill so they went silent for about a week. That is, until July 20 when they featured (of all people) Robert Oscar Lopez claiming that (of all things) children of same-sex couples need FADA (which made no sense whatsoever). When is the last time that Robert Oscar Lopez did make sense? The NOMmers took another vacation from FADA for nearly two weeks; that is until August 2, when Brian Brown, desperate for money, needed funds to send copies of (useless) petitions to Congress (where staffers spike fax spam). Since then we have had a daily onslaught of messages that NOM needs funds to push FADA through. Maybe that telethon idea might be better.
The proposed text of FADA now includes support for same-sex marriage. The text of the bill now reads (in part):
(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Federal Government shall not take any discriminatory action against a person, wholly or partially on the basis that such person believes, speaks, or acts in accordance with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction that—write: “ In principle, promising protections to supporters of same-sex marriage should be unobjectionable.” She is possibly correct although I think that FADA is yet another encroachment on the Establishment Clause. She goes on from there to write the usual blather in spite of noting the fact that Liberty Counsel and Family Research Council had both dropped support. American Family Association did so more recently for a total of three hate groups.
(1) marriage is or should be recognized as the union of—
(2) extramarital relations are improper.
- (A) two individuals of the opposite sex; or
- (B) two individuals of the same sex; or
The fact is that no GOPer is ever going to vote for a bill that recognizes the legal existence of same-sex marriage. They remain in denial. For them, same-sex marriage does not exist.
Mr. Brown is wed to—or claims the embrace of—(at least) two false notions:
- Same-sex marriage does not exist and;
- The First Amendment Defense Act is viable legislation.