NOM, uh, 'nay!': Strong, inclusive army, nondiscrimination, *and* committed monogamy make Brown all kinds of blue
Elena Kagan's support for nondiscrimination on Harvard's campus was thoroughly respectful:
"I have said before how much I regret making this exception to our antidiscrimination policy. I believe the military's discriminatory employment policy is deeply wrong - both unwise and unjust. And this wrong tears at the fabric of our own community by denying an opportunity to some of our students that other of our students have. The importance of the military to our society - and the great service that members of the military provide to all the rest of us - heightens, rather than excuses, this inequity. The Law School remains firmly committed to the principle of equal opportunity for all persons, without regard to sexual orientation. And I look forward to the time when all our students can pursue any career path they desire, including the path of devoting their professional lives to the defense of their country."
And after the Supreme Court upheld the Solomon Amendment in FAIR v. Rumsfeld, she remained nothing but respectful:
"I hope that many members of the Harvard Law School community will accept the Court's invitation to express their views clearly and forcefully regarding the military's discriminatory employment policy. As I have said before, I believe that policy is profoundly wrong -- both unwise and unjust -- and I look forward to the day when all our students, regardless of sexual orientation, will be able to serve and defend this country in the armed services."
For a fully fleshed out examination of this not-at-all "radical" matter, see Nancy Polikoff's take over at Bilerico. Kagan was far from alone. Kagan was far from "belittling." Kagan was far from wrong.
And of course regardless of one's views on the right of a military to discriminate against gays to recruit on campuses that highly value equal treatment to all students regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, this matter has nothing to do with marriage equality for same-sex couples. But for the National Organization For Marriage's Brian Brown, EVERYTHING comes down to marriage. And as he tells conservative radio host Penna Dexter, Brian thinks the same Kagan that simply wanted EQUAL opportunity under America's constitution would use her SCOTUS position to "invent a constitutional right" to marriage:
Now, of course we all know that there's no need to "invent" anything, since the United States constitution is already quite ready and willing to grant equal marriage access to same-sex couples, and to strike down the hostile impediments that have exploited heterosexist mentalities in order to obfuscate this issue and set up unnatural roadblocks on the way to peace. Brian and company just want you to think that accurate reads of constitutional fairness/justice are somehow "belittling," and that the readers who recite the fair and free tale are "radical." Because if the Morality Monopoly tournament team isn't aggressive in framing it this way, people might start asking if maybe -- just maybe -- it's those Americans who wanna use their personal faith views to deny commitment, open service, protections, rights, and benefits under the civil law who might just be the ones truly overreaching here.
But we do want to thank Brian for weighing in on DADT, even if slightly. Because we all know that NOM's true agenda goes well beyond just marriage. The goal is to define a norm that ignores the normal role of LGBT people within society. Marriage is simply the "sexy" issue onto which they've hitched their finger-waggin'.
comments powered by Disqus