NOM president: Marriage ruling is 'Dred Scott decision of our time'
Brian Brown's organization literally vowed to "drive a wedge between blacks and gays." Remember that as you read Brian, now one of the most desperate clothes-less emperors in all of American politics, directly compare a ruling that extended freedoms to a minority population with a ruling that once upheld slavery:
This not the first time that the Court has relied on its own conception of liberty to justify a decision. One of the best examples of this phenomenon was the Dred Scott v. Sandford case in which a majority of the Supreme Court ruled that restrictions on slavery were unconstitutional because of the implied right of slaveholders. African Americans were thus not people entitled to the rights of citizens, but instead property subject to the will of their masters.
In terms of its legal reasoning, the marriage case, Obergefell v. Hodges, is the Dred Scott decision of our time. It is illegitimate and completing lacking in constitutional authority. It is the product of unaccountable judges legislating from the bench, usurping the role of elected officials and voters and imposing a social policy on the nation because they think they know best.
And like Dred Scott, America need not accept it as the final word, the "law of the land" or even a decision worthy of respect. After the Dred Scott decision was rendered, President Lincoln said in his first inaugural address that "if the policy of the government upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made … the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."
The decision last week is by no means the final word concerning the definition of marriage. NOM is committed to overturning this ruling and containing its effects.
FULL: SCOTUS ruling is not the final word on marriage [Wash. Examiner]
NOM can commit to whatever the hell it wants. But if the Republican party keeps committing to this ugly (and coarsening) chapter in American history, then it can kiss its national electoral hopes goodbye.
Episcopalians approve ceremonies for all legally-qualified couples
Here's something novel: an advancement from the religious world:
Details: AP via ABC News
And of course all of the anti-gay conservatives will fully respect their religious freedom. Right?
NOM's wishful (and disrespectful) thinking: SCOTUS ruling is 'illegitimate'
In yet another fundraising plea (because NOM does little else these days), the already-done-even-if-they-don't-know-it-yet National Organization For Marriage has taken to calling the Obergefell decision "illegitimate":
Of course if it would've been 5–4 the other way, and the majority had only written "Hibbity Jibbity O'Mibbity Schibbity," NOM would be praising the ruling as historic and definitive and the greatest victory ever known. It wouldn't have mattered that 40+ federal decisions went for our side. NOM would hang its (out of fashion, tattered, frankly foul-smelling) hat on this one decision, no matter how Scalia-ctivist it was.
NOM has always been a sore loser of an organization. It is NOM's legacy.
Focus on the Family creates itemized price list for 'saving' marriage
You guys, if you donate forty buckerooskies to the notoriously and infamously anti-gay Focus on the Family, you can save one marriage. Or, um, two. They claim different things in different places.
Either way, they definitely have managed to put a price tag on the reparation of heterosexual marriages ruined by gays:
But if you only give $39.99, the straight couple(s) will quietly resent one another over brunch. Anything less than that? Affairs. Annually.
Fox News pays this person for his opinions
God's probably about to drown us all because of marriage equality. So suggests Fox News' own Todd Starnes:
For starters, it doesn't even make any sense. The prideful White House came before D.C. precipitation. Since the rainbow of the bible was a sign of hope following the torment, if anything the Obama White House's pro-gay move would be symbolic of the hope that now follows decades of anti-gay demagoguery. If following the Noah's Ark tale logically, the rainbow is the promise of a better day, not a harbinger of things to come.
But details, schmetails. As long as you think gays are awful and are about to bring upon a natural disaster that will wipe out much of the planet, then Todd will have accomplished the stupefying task he set out to deliver to his presumptively hostile base. And Fox News pays him for it.
Pat Buchanan doubles down on 1983 column claiming AIDS is nature's punishment
Conservative pundit and Fox News regular Pat Buchanan is very angry at the idea of same-sex couples pledging committed love to one another. To drive home his point, he's celebrating the three-decades expansion of a particular disease:
Three decades ago, this columnist was denounced for writing that homosexuals “have declared war on human nature. And nature is exacting an awful retribution.” Hateful speech, it was said.
Yet, when I wrote that line, AIDS victims in America numbered in the hundreds. Worldwide today they number in the millions. And there is a pandemic of STDs among America’s young who have joined the sexual revolution preached in the 1960s.
Can true “social progress” produce results like that?
“God will have the final word in this matter,” says [Alveda] King.
Certainly, in the world to come, He will. Yet, even in this world, it is hard to recall a civilization that rejected its God, repudiated the faith and morality by which it grew great, embraced what was previously regarded as decadence, and survived.
FULL: DOES MORAL TRUTH REALLY CHANGE, AMERICA? [WND]
Of course even if Buchanan's truly disgusting concerns were sincere about this, a disease that initially spread within a minority population due, in large part, to a lack of concern and an abundance of ignorance on the part of pals of Buchanan's like Ronald Reagan, he'd be quite in favor of a system that is built around committed sexual couplings. But of course he's really just trying to portray gays as God's hated minority, so crass celebration of viral expanse is the order of the day. It's what passed as conservative punditry here decades ago, and it still does to this day.
*Here's the original column:
Is NOM really going to push for a constitutional convention on marriage?
A while back, I told you about the National Organization For Marriage purchasing a few domain names that pointed to the possibility of a "marriage convention." At first I assumed the domain names to be about a summit or conference of some sort that NOM was cooking up. However, after I saw that they'd also purchased names referring to a "Marriage ConCon" it became clear that a constitutional convention focused on marriage inequality was what they had in the cards. The idea being that a group of states (you'd need at least thirty-four) could, for the first time in our nation's history, call a constitutional convention where they could propose amendments to then be sent to all the states for ratification (you'd need at least thirty-eight).
After Friday's decision, NOM chair John Eastman floated that possibility to National Review Online:
A third option, one that is also constitutionally envisioned, would be a constitutional amendment, originating either in Congress or in the states. An amendment that defines marriage as it is in nature, an institution rooted in the biological complementarity of men and women, would address the immediate consequence of today’s decision. But a structural amendment should also be considered, something that would restore a check on what the Founders described as the least powerful but what has become the most dangerous branch. Such an amendment might allow supermajorities of the states or of Congress to overturn erroneous decisions, or it might revive the Constitution’s language that judges serve during “good behavior” rather than until they voluntarily resign, die, or commit a “high crime and misdemeanor” necessary for impeachment.
Read more at: NRO
Clearly Congress is not going to move forward with a new Federal Marriage Amendment, an idea that didn't pass even during the height of the anti-equality Bush years. So is this "in the states" idea that Eastman teases really something NOM finds feasible?
Well, maybe. Because it turns out that NOM just renewed those domain names referring to the convention/con con. They were all set to expire over the weekend, but today NOM renewed them:
The idea is so unprecedented, wacky, and desperate, that it's hard to imagine this as a real idea that a real organization would really oppose. But then again, this is NOM we are talking about. This is the same group that once vowed to drive a wedge between blacks and gays. Dividing the nation with nutty ideas is sort of NOM's thing.
Video: Great piece from 'CBS Sunday Morning' highlights sweet success
The contrast between the ugly bitterness and the sweet success has never been so stark: