First, Mr. Trump has promised to appoint constitutionalists to the US Supreme Court, justices who believe the constitution means what it says and does not change and expand to suit the political mood of the day. These are justices in the mold of the late Antonin Scalia. And judges who share Justice Scalia’s legal philosophy will inevitably vote to reverse the illegitimate, anti-constitutional ruling redefining marriage in the terrible Obergefell decision of 2015.Does Brown think that they can just re-litigate Obergefell? Of course they cannot. A new case has to make its way to the Court and the Court has to agree to hear it. “Justices who believe that the constitution means what it says” are likely to take Article III seriously which requires a litigant to have legal standing. Exactly what injury can someone claim to have actually sustained as a direct result of same-sex marriage?
By the way, what is Brown's justification for overturning Obergefell? The teachings of the Catholic Church are irrelevant to the matter. Brown has not offered any reasoning for some time. In fact he and his ilk have never been able to articulate the harm of same-sex marriage. Perhaps that is because there is no harm. One cannot possibly claim — at least not with a straight face — that traditional marriage has been affected in any way whatsoever.
Second, Mr. Trump has promised to sign the critically-important First Amendment Defense Act into law, protecting the rights of supporters of marriage to live out their views at work and in their daily lives. This legislation must become a top priority of the new Congress.The divine right of kings? The thing cannot even get out of committee and the House sponsors have already poison-pilled the measure (which is unconstitutional per se). And if that were not enough, where are the 60 votes in the Senate?
And third, we are confident that the Trump administration will move swiftly to reverse the dangerous, outrageous push by the Obama team to redefine gender so that men can occupy intimate areas reserved for girls and women, including bathrooms, showers and locker rooms.Brown is amateurishly begging the question with the redefining gender nonsense (per the Church). Nevertheless, I would expect Trump's ED secretary to reverse the guidance along with Mr. Sessions. Then the matter will be decided by individual school boards. Meanwhile the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Gloucester County School Board v. G.G. sometime in February. I am guessing that both sides are going to be unhappy with the Court's ruling in this case but sometimes the justices surprise us all.
In any event, none of this provides reason to give money to NOM so that it can pay its overdue bills. They are not in a position to affect Obergefell or the dead FADA. Nor, for that matter, will they have any impact on how public schools treat trans students. It takes balls on a skateboard to conclude:
But to make sure that these things actually happen, NOM must be on duty to encourage and support President Trump and to hold Congresses’ feet to the fire. That is why we need your immediate financial assistance.Give us money so that NOM can be on duty. Brown actually wrote that.