Saturday, September 21, 2019

Brian S. Brown equates marriage equality with slavery

“What this is really about is raison d'être. NOM hasn't accomplished anything and it doesn't really do anything. Brian S. Brown is seeking a reason for it to exist.”
Brian S. Brown
Same-sex marriage hasn't affected anyone adversely. About the worst consequence of gay marriage is that a friend or relative will register at a boutique that is too pricey. Brian S. Brown disagrees.

Imagine public
policy dictated
by this guy.
Mr. Brown, you see, doesn't make many independent decisions. He feels obliged to follow the teachings that emanate from the Vatican. However, Brian S. Brown is no closer in viewpoint to American Catholics than I am in accord with Hasidic Jews and I had a shrimp cocktail last night — oy veh.

Mr. Brown decided to vent, on behalf of National Organization for Marriage, via the conservative outlet, Daily Wire. Brown's diatribe is titled: BROWN: The Fight For Marriage Continues. Mr. Brown is a dead-ender. His arguments for reinstating marriage discrimination don't even rise to the level of the losing arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges and United States v. Windsor.
I'm grateful to Daily Wire Editor-at-Large Josh Hammer for bringing attention to the need for conservatives to get re-engaged in the fight for traditional marriage. The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) has been helping lead the movement to protect marriage for over 12 years now, and we remain fully engaged in the fight.
Twelve years, seventy million dollars, zero results. That does not depict leadership or the existence of of a movement.
Over 50 million Americans voted for traditional marriage in 30 states only to see their votes stolen by the illegitimate, anti-constitutional U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges.
The above is extraordinarily idiotic.
  1. The logical fallacy is called argumentum ad populum or simply bandwagon. It is the idea that what was popular is good. Something must be true because of the widespread belief in it.
  2. I do not know the source of Brown's vote count but the last time marriage was on the ballot was in 2012. Then voters in Maine, Maryland and Washington State voted in favor of marriage equality. Voters in Minnesota rejected a ballot measure that would have amended the constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Thus, supporters of marriage equality went four for four.
  3. I can play vox populi too. The last time I checked about 75% of our citizenry now support same-sex marriage. The issue has been settled and, as we promised, no one has been affected adversely.
  4. The Catholic Church and, thus, Brian Brown do not like the ruling in Obergefell. That does not render it “illegitimate.”
The Obergefell decision is one of the most unprincipled U.S. Supreme Court rulings ever, legally on par with the infamous Dred Scott ruling.
Because Brian Brown's religious objection (one that is hardly universal) means that same-sex marriage is as evil as slavery.
But it's not settled. Marriage is the most important institution that society has to bring men and women together and to provide the ideal environment for children …
We have heard it all before. The Supreme Court settled the issue and the American public support marriage equality.
Americans are beginning to see the consequences of Obergefell. Despite the assurances of the justices in the Court's majority, supporters of traditional marriage have not been left alone to live out their beliefs. There are dozens of cases where marriage supporters have been targeted by LGBT activists and their political allies who have sought to force not merely acceptance, but celebration, of gay "marriage."
This is bullshit on many levels. The first of those is that requiring people to obey nondiscrimination laws is not a means of “targeting” anyone. Furthermore, to describe bigots as “supporters of traditional marriage” is deceitful. Vendors have refused service for several reasons. They oppose same-sex marriage; the refusal is a means of conveying their disapproval and they confuse service with approval which they refuse to provide.

Moreover, most of the cases that I am aware of predate the ruling in Obergefell. Refusing service violates many nondiscrimination laws throughout the United States having nothing to do with marriage. Elayne Photography v. Willock dates back to 2006 and was about refusing service to a commitment ceremony in violation of New Mexico law. The two most prominent cases predate Windsor and Obergefell. Masterpiece Cakeshop dates back to 2012. Arlene's Flowers (Barronelle Stutzman) began in March, 2013 (pre-Windsor).

Finally (and the turds have piled up) the idea that selling flowers or baking a cake is “celebrating” a marriage that the vendors disapprove of is categorically absurd. It is the exchange of goods and services for money.

Brian S. Brown can call these consequences but they are not. Mr. Brown has less moral concern over his truthfulness than he has over marriages that do not affect him in any way whatsoever. These are a mere handful of cases dating back many years. If there are ten of these then that is one in every five states at the rate of about one per year across the entire United States and its 327 million citizens.
To put it another way, your chances of being struck by lightning in the U.S. in any given year are about 521 times higher than your chances of being adversely affected by same-sex marriage.
So much for consequences. They do not exist and never have.
The concept of gender itself is now under attack by the same activists who demanded that marriage be redefined in Obergefell. A dangerous gender ideology is being force-fed to children as young as kindergartners. Unsurprisingly, there's been a rampant increase in teens identifying as "transgender." Many parents report that their children exhibit sudden and rapid onset of gender dysphoria because of social media.
The Church doesn't like transgender people because their existence conflicts with Genesis 1:27 (something that the Vatican has admitted). The existence of gender dysphoria is a medical condition. More young people are affirming their gender than six years ago because they are permitted to do so. Previously, parents did everything possible to prevent transition (which did not work and is directly related to suicide). The total percentage of trans people is probably about the same.

The existence of so-called rapid onset gender dysphoria has been discredited. The one study in support was eviscerated with a formal correction and the publisher apologized to the trans community.

Brown's bullshit aside, what does the Vatican's rejection of gender science have to do with the ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges? Brown is simply confirming that the Vatican is indifferent to medical science. Perhaps people with gender dysphoria must consult with one of the official exorcists. Each diocese is required to have one.

Not that Hasidim are any less crazy (e.g. for 12 days each month spouses are prohibited from touching each other).

We take another tour of irrelevant vote land:
Democracy itself has been weakened by Obergefell. When over 50 million Americans go to the polls to support traditional marriage, only to see their votes discarded by five unelected judges, citizen confidence in government is eroded.
Were that the case then about three-fourths of American society would not approve of same-sex marriage. Each tweet from our deranged president does more to erode confidence in our government than all of the same-sex marriages that have ever occurred and will ever occur until the end of time.
Despite all this, or perhaps because of it, there remains a vibrant and growing movement to protect the right of Americans to support true marriage — and to restore marriage to our national laws. It's time for conservatives to get off the sidelines and back in the fight.
Dead-enders who have never accomplished anything do not comprise a “vibrant and growing movement.” My hypothesis is that fewer and fewer people object to marriage equality as they see that is doesn't affect them. That is precisely what happened in Massachusetts over time. No one cares except for a handful of religious nutters.
NOM is working on a number of fronts that are producing results. Extensive efforts through the Trump administration and the courts are underway to protect the religious liberty rights of Americans to live out their beliefs about marriage. Last year's Supreme Court victory in the case of Christian baker Jack Phillips in the Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling was hugely important. NOM participated in the case as amicus curiae.
Please. NOM doesn't actually do anything other than asking people for donations. NOM likely has no sway over the Trump administration and is involved in no court cases that I am aware of. The ruling in Masterpiece seems to say that nondiscrimination ordinances are valid providing that they are neutral and without religious animus.

NOM's amicus brief was one of scores of briefs. The Court did not do what NOM asked it to do which was to create religious exemptions, overturning Employment Division v. Smith:
The question presented is: Whether applying Colorado’s public accommodations law to compel Phillips to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.
Amicus brief:
National Organization for Marriage &
 Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence
We're vigorously contesting the notion that a person's sex is not a biological reality and that it is instead based on feelings and emotions. And we're fighting hard to prevent further advances of the LGBT agenda, including the grossly misnamed Equality Act (H.R. 5/S.788) which would enact much of the LGBT agenda in federal statute at the expense of people of faith.
In other words, contrary to settled medical science, gender does not exist. NOM has had no effect on the Equality Act. Predictably it passed in the House and seems to have died in the Senate. It might become a reality in 2021 if Democrats take control of the Senate in 2020 and defeat the Crazy Orange Creature who lies all the time. Until then NOM is out of the picture.
Through all of this, however, we've never lost sight of the need to repeal Obergefell. And by the grace of God, we now have a path forward using the same avenue that imposed it — the U.S. Supreme Court. Obergefell was a 5-4 decision. Thanks to the appointments of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the Court, we believe there's a current majority on the Court to overturn Obergefell. If President Trump is able to appoint yet another justice, we'd be in an even stronger position.
All of this verbiage and Brown has not provided a single reason to overturn Obergefell. Not one. For a case challenging Obergefell to get through the Courts someone has to first have Article III standing which means that they have to demonstrate actual harm from same-sex marriage. Not future harm and not hypothetical harm. Then overturning Obergefell has to be the best means of redress.

The people who want a license to discriminate do not have a legal problem with marriage. Their legal issue is state and local nondiscrimination laws. There is no case challenging Obergefell in the courts. The reason is simple. Forget Article III standing. It's just a matter of common sense. Same-sex marriage has not harmed anyone. It never will.

We have a very conservative Court so nothing is impossible but Obergefell seems pretty safe to me. Obergefell overruled a 1977 case, Baker v. Nelson. Would they now conclude that Baker v. Nelson was right all along?

Brian S. Brown is just recycling the losing arguments in Windsor and then Obergefell. He has not — and cannot — offer a single secular reason to overturn either of those cases. His is a religious objection and that does not offer the justification ordinarily required to reverse prior rulings and none of the facts have changed over the last four plus years (six years post Windsor).

What this is really about is raison d'être. NOM has not accomplished anything and it does not really do anything. Brian S. Brown is seeking a reason for it to exist.

Raison d'être is an inconvenient necessity if you want to keep asking people for money to be pissed away or allowed to be stolen by executives.

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.