RECENT  POSTS:  » Lisa Kudrow thinks my website title is modest, at best » Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded mission of destruction? » MassResistance's hilarious fourteen-point plan for reinstating marriage discrimination: Get really, really nasty » Concerned Women For America finally learns to call out anti-gay rhetoric » 'Rivka Edelman' responds to me via one of the most bizarre comments I've ever read » Just going to another vendor isn't always easy, isn't good basis for sound policy » Pat Robertson: People who believe in fair nondiscrimination law are 'terrorists, radicals, and extremists' » In which another anti-gay group forces politicos to Gladys Kravitz our way into one family's divorce drama » In 2008, the AFA was the same on LGBT rights as President Obama; and I was a flying unicorn » The Hitching Post plot thickens in a truly remarkable way  

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

04/24/2014

NOM's Chair to Oregon: We have a right to tell courts our personal, conservative Catholic opinions!

by Jeremy Hooper

No one in the state of Oregon who would have true standing to do so sees an interest in defending the state's discriminatory marriage law. This is a big statement—one that the people of Oregon made when they voted for the elected officials they chose to represent their interests.

But the National Organization For Marriage, a pro-discrimination special interest group based hundreds of miles away should get the right to come in and state their Catholic-driven objections, simply because they feel like it. That's the basic argument of John Eastman, a man who has referred to homosexuality as a modern form of "barbarism":

Images 5"What is occurring in Oregon is the plaintiffs are colluding with the government to get a pre-ordained result that fits with their political agenda notwithstanding the fact that the voters of Oregon voted overwhelmingly to define marriage as one man and one woman. Judge Michael McShane held a hearing in Oregon yesterday where everybody participating--two sets of plaintiffs and two sets of Defendants, including the Governor and the Attorney General, all argued that Oregon's marriage law served no rational purpose. Attorneys for the government announced that they could not even conceive of any argument in favor of marriage between one man and one woman. The hearing highlighted in a profound way the importance to our adversary process of actually having adversaries.The National Organization for Marriage has asked to intervene in this case to serve as a genuine adversary to the plaintiffs and the state, and to represent our members and the voters who firmly believe that marriage between one man and one woman serves the public interest. We're very pleased with Judge McShane's order on Tuesday allowing briefing and argument on our motion to intervene. We look forward to the argument on May 14, and then to full participation in this important case thereafter. And we look forward to mounting a vigorous defense of traditional marriage and making the strong arguments in favor of marriage that no one made to the Judge yesterday."

—National Organization For Marriage Chair John Eastman

NOM's spokesfolks are starting to sound more and more like little kids demanding ponies.

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