Wednesday, July 3, 2019

Brian S. Brown is trying his best - through his own confusion

What are the odds of Brian S. Brown making a compelling and intellectually honest argument in opposition to marriage equality?
Brian S. Brown
via YouTube/Fox News
Yup, Brian S. Brown, on behalf of National Organization for Marriage, is recycling the losing arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges while arguing over something that has absolutely nothing to do with same-sex marriage. So what's the point? You know what the point is:
Translation: Send us some money that we will piss away. I wish that Brown could be briefer with his BS:
When the US Supreme Court imposed same-sex 'marriage' on the nation in 2015 in their illegitimate Obergefell ruling, many legal scholars predicted that the decision would upend a rash of legal doctrines. Justice Samuel Alito warned his fellow justices about unforeseen consequences that would emerge from their improper redefinition of marriage to suit the desires of same-sex couples. Boy was he right. A new case currently seeking Supreme Court review reveals one of the most fundamental issues raised by the redefinition of marriage – our understanding of parenthood.
A ruling by the Supreme Court cannot be illegitimate no matter how much Brown and the Catholic Church do not like it. Justice Alito also said — in United States v. Windsor — that people who believed solely in traditional marriage would be labeled “bigots or superstitious fools.” Damned if that isn't a great reason to make a religious decision in violation of the Establishment Clause. For the record no one cares. It only becomes a concern when someone attempts to impose their religious beliefs on public policy.
Mr. Brown continues with a stupendous argument:
Frank G. is the biological father of twins born in the state of New York. He has raised them continuously since birth, and for many years was their sole caregiver. But Frank didn't have a wife or girlfriend who bore the children. They were born to Renee, the sister of the man Frank was romantically involved and lived with, Joseph. Frank and Joseph were an unmarried same-sex couple, but the relationship has ended and the court battle begun as to who the children's parents are.
Look Bri, I know that you are desperate to make an argument in support of overturning Obergefell. At the risk of pointing out the obvious:
  1. This is a surrogacy dispute having nothing to do with sexual orientation which means;
  2. This is a dispute over a contract and;
  3. The couple did not marry which means that it has nothing whatsoever to do with Obergefell.
But the faithful can click the gay away:
This saga goes on and on. It never gets any better. Keep in mind that the Catholic Church is vehemently opposed to surrogacy. The biological father of the twins has custody. Brown asks:
Is your head spinning?
No Bri, it's not all that complicated. Perhaps he is confused. The legal case rests with the terms of the agreements. The entanglements are irrelevant. The text continues in order to provide anchor text for:
I think that we all get the point.

Related content:

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.