Increased understanding that marriage equality is right means we should—make it a federal wrong?! Huh?
Here is NOM's reaction to the U.S. District Judge's ruling against Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage, which sounds just like the statements NOM has issued all of the other times a judge has cast the right opinion about inequality:
Today, the National Organization for Marriage renews its call for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The decision by U.S District Court Judge Terence Kern in Oklahoma is the latest in a string of examples of the dangers posed to state marriage laws when the avenue of debate is the federal court system. We need firm legislative action to protect the rights of the states and their citizens to make their own determinations regarding the definition of marriage without interference from federal appointees either in the courts or within the executive branch. [NOM]
I "love" this crazy idea that this continued string of rulings is "proof" that we need to inscribe discrimination of the highest federal order. What nonsensical noise!
Judge after judge in state after state has cast an opinion in favor of the freedom to marry because these judges, tasked, as they are, with unpacking the (il)legalities of such things, see that this sort of denial is wrong. Wrongy wrong wrong! Groups like NOM have spent well over a decade, billions of dollars, and untold human capital making a daily case for discrimination, and they have been able to maintain some semblance of a support base when it comes to far-right politicians, diehard anti-LGBT activists, and folks who believe that their fervent belief in biblical clobber passages means they should extend their personal condemnations into civil law. But judges are not part of this contingent. Judges have a standard much higher than that of talking point, press release, or personal wish—which is precisely why NOM, like all of the anti-LGBT groups, loathe judges and have spent so much time (dangerously) undermining the judiciary's role.
NOM wants an FMA because NOM doesn't like the current rules and wants to change them. Since it is obvious to every objective American over (and even some under) two years old that we on the right side of history will continue to prevail in fair courts, NOM wants to artificially alter the constitution through the power of like-minded person. They hope to elect enough true activists to the House and Senate to pass this kind of pro-discrimination bill, elect a Santorum-like president ho will sign it, and sway enough legislatures/citizens in the states to birth this biased baby into law. They don't want this process to play out in the courts because that would be too organic. NOM needs artifice because NOM's case on behalf of human exclusion is artificial.
comments powered by Disqus