Monday, October 7, 2019

About what I expected from NOM

Click-to-donate from NOM's email
The text of Brian S. Brown's missive on behalf of National Organization for Marriage reads:
Tomorrow morning, the US Supreme Court will hear oral argument in three critical cases where LGBT activists are seeking to redefine the term "sex" under federal law to include "sexual orientation" and "gender identity." The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) has filed an important legal brief in these cases.

This is a hugely important legal battle because if gay activists prevail, they will succeed in imposing major elements of their extreme agenda on the American people, especially people of faith.
NOM's brief, written by John Eastman, is neither “important” nor compelling. It is not important because it is unoriginal and mirrors countless other amicus briefs from conservative Christians regarding these three cases. When it comes to “imposing” an “extreme agenda” that would be the endeavor of religious groups to insist that LGBTQ people can be terminated from their jobs simply for being LGBTQ and unrelated to workplace proficiency.

Brown continues with a diatribe:
These cases show the utter duplicity of LGBT advocacy. For years, they have argued that federal law must be changed to allow for discrimination claims on grounds of "sexual orientation" and "gender identity." Congress has repeatedly rejected these LGBT entreaties under both Democrat and Republican control. So now, they've turned to illegitimate means to force their agenda upon society, including the courts and administrative agencies and departments during the Obama era. This is the same illegitimate route they pursued to impose same-sex 'marriage' on the nation, but now we've made significant gains on the Supreme Court and are optimistic that SCOTUS will resist this illegitimate attempt to redefine the law.
Brown apparently forgot that this was the same argument he was making before United States v. Windsor and then Obergefell v. Hodges. It deserves the same answer. Every major advance in civil rights has been through the courts. Without the 1954 ruling in Brown v. Board of Education there might not have been the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Even then, it took three more years to undo state laws banning interracial marriage: Loving v. Virginia.

The mention of Loving v. Virginia provides an opportunity to review some of the history in the criminal case against Loving. The trial judge wrote:
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix
Brian S. Brown is not the first conservative Christian to oppose the equality of a minority group due to religious dogma. In Brown's case, it is the fundamentalist adherence to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

These three cases will be argued on Tuesday. We might not get a ruling until next June. Trump has moved an already conservative court to the right so I am not terribly hopeful that these cases will be resolved according to fairness for a minority group. Brown's claim that rulings and legal enterprises that he does not like are “illegitimate” is idiotic and pompous. Mr. Brown is not the arbiter of American jurisprudence.

Over eleven plus years, NOM has accomplished absolutely nothing except to burn through more than $70 million. Are there still people who believe that donating money to NOM will affect legal cases before the nation's courts? Probably.

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.