RECENT  POSTS:  » And now NOM is literally pleading with its (theoretical) supporters » Add 'professional advocate for anti-gay scouting' to list of bygone career choices » NOM to lasso the White House with a rosary. Or something. » NOM's new plan? To beat up its org-crushing loss until it becomes a win. » By the time you read this headline, we'll be ten more seconds beyond stagnant anti-gay 'culture wars' » Video: America cannot wait—to purchase American Family Association radio equipment? Huh?! » Huckabee 2016: 'cause church and state aint gonna marry themselves » EEOC does wonky, under-radar thing that could lay groundwork for definitive nondiscrimination protections » Maggie Gallagher, now that you've lost on marriage, might you lose these deceptive ways as well? » Crowdfunding discriminatory business owners: Perfect statement on anti-gay movement's current affairs  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

10/22/2010

Brian Brown: Most likely turns off TV before 'Order' part of 'L&O'

by Jeremy Hooper

Brian-NOM-BrownAnd now, here's National Organization For Marriage's partisan president Brian Brown telling us what a world with a equality-backing SCOTUS would look like for them/us:

Brown: Ultimately if this Perry vs Schwarzenegger case out of California goes to the Supreme Court - and I'm confident that we will win at the Supreme Court - but if we were to lose and if the Supreme Court was to force same-sex marriage on, for example, Texas or Alabama or states that have voted by something like seventy-five percent to support marriage as a union of a man and woman and you have the US Supreme Court throwing out the vote of these states, I think you're going to have a strong movement for a federal marriage amendment. And that would also be a very clear sign to the courts that they are bound by the law and they don't have the right to simply put into law their own personal preferences.

You also have under Article III in the Constitution the idea that Congress could limit the appellate jurisdiction of some of these federal courts, so that's another way in which, that's already in our law, that Congress could limit the ability of the federal courts to force same-sex marriage on the rest of the country, or any other issue on which the court's overstepping its bounds.

Targeting Iowa Judges To Send A Message To the Supreme Court [Right Wing Watch]

And if none of this works? Public flogging of all judges, natch.

In another part of this same interview (which he gave to David Barton), Brian also accuses the Iowa Supremes of "mak[ing] up the law out of thin air," and says he wants them removed by state voters so that "there will be reverberations throughout the country all the way to the United States Supreme Court" (see above link for audio). Jurisprudence which Brian of course culled from that noted legal textbook, It's Not True What They Say: If You Keep Saying Certain Things About Complex Constitutional Law, Some People Really *WILL* Think It's True and Become Foot Soldiers For Your Vindictive Causes (4th Edition, Houghton Miffed-at-Progress)

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails