Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

NOM: The people your (Founding) Fathers warned you about

NOM Exposed Right-wing

Cross-posted at Waking Up Now.

by Rob Tisinai

NOM has defeated all three of the valiant Iowa State Supreme Court justices up for retention, justices who voted to uphold basic rights for all citizens regardless of popular sentiment.

It’s a big win for NOM. It’s a huge blow to the Constitution and the form of government created by our Founding Fathers.

Maggie Gallagher wouldn’t say so, of course.

Here we have an openly gay (according to the San Francisco Chronicle) federal judge substituting his views for those of the American people and of our Founding Fathers, who I promise you, would be shocked by courts that imagine they have the right to put gay marriage in our Constitution.

Yeah, they’d be shocked, but only because they understood so little about gays, lesbians, and same-sex relationships. What would shock them, too, though, is NOM’s thoroughly unAmerican rhetoric and behavior toward Iowa’s judges.

Conservatives (and Tea Partiers in particular) constantly invoke the Federalist Papers to explain the government our Founders intended. So let’s look at #78, which sets out the philosophy behind an independent judiciary. We’ll find three points that NOM would rather keep hidden [emphasis added in all quotes below].

1. Judges have a duty to declare laws invalid if they violate the Constitution

A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

2. Judges have a duty to protect the rights of minorities

But it is not with a view to infractions of the Constitution only, that the independence of the judges may be an essential safeguard against the effects of occasional ill humors in the society. These sometimes extend no farther than to the injury of the private rights of particular classes of citizens, by unjust and partial laws. Here also the firmness of the judicial magistracy is of vast importance in mitigating the severity and confining the operation of such laws. It not only serves to moderate the immediate mischiefs of those which may have been passed, but it operates as a check upon the legislative body in passing them; who, perceiving that obstacles to the success of iniquitous intention are to be expected from the scruples of the courts, are in a manner compelled, by the very motives of the injustice they meditate, to qualify their attempts.

3. Judges (especially at the highest levels) should not be subject to a vote by the people

That inflexible and uniform adherence to the rights of the Constitution, and of individuals, which we perceive to be indispensable in the courts of justice, can certainly not be expected from judges who hold their offices by a temporary commission. Periodical appointments, however regulated, or by whomsoever made, would, in some way or other, be fatal to their necessary independence. If the power of making them was committed either to the Executive or legislature, there would be danger of an improper complaisance to the branch which possessed it; if to both, there would be an unwillingness to hazard the displeasure of either; if to the people, or to persons chosen by them for the special purpose, there would be too great a disposition to consult popularity, to justify a reliance that nothing would be consulted but the Constitution and the laws.

Let’s be very clear on that last point: When the people can vote on a judge’s tenure, judges will be so tempted to base their decisions on popularity that they can’t be counted on to uphold the Constitution.

Compare that to the strategy laid out by NOM’s Brian Brown:

Many people that have commented on what we’re going through right now, especially with the Proposition 8 case in California, are looking at the Iowa judicial retention election – and even though there are many important elections about the country – they’re actually saying this is the most important election because it will send a clear signal to the Supreme Court and other judges that they don’t have the right to make up the law out of thin air. Their job is to interpret the law, it is not to be out robed masters and judicial activists imposing their will on the rest of us. And so if the people of Iowa do what I think they’ll do and stand up and remove these judges, there will be reverberations throughout the country all the way to the United States Supreme Court.

The National Organization for Marriage is exactly what the Founding Fathers warned us against.

  • NOM is a radical organization, not a conservative one.
  • NOM wants to butcher the balance of power set up by our Founding Fathers, not restore it.
  • NOM wants to subvert the Constitution, not uphold it.

NOM’s actions constantly violate their rhetoric. They claim they’re protecting children, but deny family protections to the children of same-sex couples. They claim marriage law should be up to a vote by the citizens of each state, but push a federal marriage amendment that would deny citizens that vote. And now, while invoking the Founding Fathers, they pursue a political strategy in exact opposition to what the Founders intended.

Is there any principle avowed by NOM that they won’t violate, as long as it hurts the gays?

115 Comments

  • 1. Alan E.  |  November 4, 2010 at 7:55 am

    I love it when people quote only 1 or 2 lines of a founding father of their choosing. Anyone can pick and choose as they please to "make" their case!

  • 2. Lesbians Love Boies  |  November 4, 2010 at 7:56 am

    It's the same as picking what part of the bible you want to follow, then chucking the rest out the stained glass window

  • 3. Lesbians Love Boies  |  November 4, 2010 at 7:56 am

    hmmff. Forgot to check the box.

  • 4. Ann S.  |  November 4, 2010 at 8:02 am

    I don't know why NOM thinks that the Justices of the SCOTUS feel the "reverberations" of what happened in Iowa, as though Brian Brown thinks they'll be quaking in their boots. They have lifetime tenure, Brian, remember??

  • 5. Ann S.  |  November 4, 2010 at 8:03 am

    coulda sworn I checked the dang box . . .

  • 6. Bob Barnes  |  November 4, 2010 at 8:03 am

    And now for a stomach turner…..

    [youtube =http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uncNqTcNMc&fs=1&hl=en_US]

  • 7. Shannon  |  November 4, 2010 at 8:04 am

    Excellent post! I have to believe that judges/justices all across our country (particularly those whom are not subject to popular vote recalls) may be looking at this with disgust. While it may seem a victory for NOM in the short term, in the long term (in light of pending cases that are yet to be reviewed) NOM may find themselves entering hostile territory as they fight other cases making their way up to and including the supreme court.

  • 8. Kathleen  |  November 4, 2010 at 8:05 am

    Can't watch it, but bet I can predict what he's saying.

  • 9. Ronnie  |  November 4, 2010 at 8:13 am

    : – & …….Ronnie

  • 10. Lesbians Love Boies  |  November 4, 2010 at 8:14 am

    Good point Shannon. I bet they didn't have any fast-forward thought on that conclusion.

  • 11. Rev. Will Fisher  |  November 4, 2010 at 8:15 am

    Amen, Rob.

  • 12. Judy  |  November 4, 2010 at 8:17 am

    They're not putting anything into the Constitution, darn it. It's already there.

  • 13. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  November 4, 2010 at 8:23 am

    Can't see it at work….what is it?

  • 14. Ann S.  |  November 4, 2010 at 8:24 am

    Looks like Brian Brown gloating, but I didn't watch it.

  • 15. Bob Barnes  |  November 4, 2010 at 8:24 am

    Brian Brown gloating over the three Judges booted in Iowa.

  • 16. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  November 4, 2010 at 8:29 am

    UGH!!!!
    Glad now I can't see it at work LOL

  • 17. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  November 4, 2010 at 8:41 am

    'It doesn't say GAY in the Constitution!', so how can LGBT peoples be included?????
    UGH!!!
    NOMbies make me heart sick

  • 18. Alan E.  |  November 4, 2010 at 8:42 am

    You could respond by saying that the only places where black people are mentioned is when they are insinuated with the slavery clause (of which there are 4, all of which are in the original Constitution, but don't explicitly mention skin color).

  • 19. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  November 4, 2010 at 8:45 am

    Exactly! I just can't understand their line of reasoning….can they really truly be this stupid? This blind to the facts?
    This evil?

  • 20. ElsieH  |  November 4, 2010 at 8:55 am

    Hmmph. They may gloat now but they've poked a sleeping bear. What a bunch of morons to openly say the this was shot across the bow to "activist" judges while they have lawsuits pending.

  • 21. Michael  |  November 4, 2010 at 9:05 am

    We keep allowing NOM to lie and get away with it. They did it with Prop 8 in California, then in Maine, now in Iowa. They create commercials which are complete lies and we do not respond forcefully enough. Every single time, they frame the issue and we are left flailing and trying to catch up…which we never do. It is clear now what they are up to. They intend to destroy the judicial system and our government and turn it all into an anti-gay theocracy based on their version of "religious beliefs." Until we take them seriously and fight them seriously with all the money and efforts that they fight us, we will lose again and again. We did not do that in Iowa. Will we do it in New Hampshire? Or the next time they go after Iowa judges in the next retention vote?

  • 22. JonT  |  November 4, 2010 at 9:17 am

    'Looks like Brian Brown gloating, but I didn’t watch it.'

    Haha, me neither :)

  • 23. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 4, 2010 at 9:33 am

    I choose NOT to watch it *yuck!* subscribing

  • 24. Sara O  |  November 4, 2010 at 9:40 am

    I can't bring myself to watch it, either. Sometimes it's best just to not let the poison enter your system. *shudders*

  • 25. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 4, 2010 at 9:41 am

    I hope you are correct Shannon!

    @LLB NOM is certainly consistant in their absence of "fast-forward thought" …..really checking the box this time….

  • 26. Mouse  |  November 4, 2010 at 9:43 am

    To do that takes money.

    It's easy for them to raise it because they lie and say things like "If you don't donate to us, then the gays will… (insert scary fear tactic lies) … to your children!" and ignorant people can't fork over their pocketbooks fast enough.

    It's harder for the Courage Campaign to raise money, because they're constantly asking for donations from the same small group of supporters. They don't stoop to NOMs tactics of lying to us in their requests, and without the fear motivation, it's harder to get people willing to hand over cash time and time again.

    So, yes, Michael, you've got the situation. They lie with big expensive campaigns and we're having trouble keeping up with big expensive counter-campaigns to expose the lies and diffuse their impact. Have you donated to help that cause?

  • 27. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 4, 2010 at 9:44 am

    !!!!!!!!

  • 28. Mouse  |  November 4, 2010 at 9:44 am

    The head of the organization is that evil.

    The followers are that stupid.

  • 29. Bennett  |  November 4, 2010 at 9:46 am

    Surfing the waves and claiming to have made them. It's the economy stupid!

  • 30. Judy  |  November 4, 2010 at 10:02 am

    I try to support organizations out there fighting for us, like Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and Human Rights Campaign, and here, of course.

    I also find great change happens when each of us courageously steps forward on a one-by-one basis in our daily lives. This is how the Polish fought against the onslaught of Polish jokes. According to a Polish student I had, they had a movement afoot aimed at just that strategy. I think it worked, since I no longer hear Polish jokes. Does anyone?

    A Facebook "friend" of mine posted a 9 minute video saying why she is a conservative. It was the Tea Party talking about inherent rights and the overreaching of political law. I responded, "I see you appreciate keeping political laws out of other people's pursuit of Liberty and Happiness. I'm so glad you support my right to marry my same-sex partner. I'm so glad you don't like political governing whims such as DOMA and DADT."

    The other day my niece commented, "That is so gay." To which I responded, "And by that you mean…" She apologized.

    I wear my Equality t-shirts out in public, and freely engage in conversation.

    I invited my neighbors to our Commitment Ceremony.

    I write letters to the editor, which are sometimes published.

    I hold Kathy's back in the grocery line.

    Basically, although there are other things we can do as well, it makes a tremendous difference if we each confront lack of knowledge every chance we get. Please be courageous one-on-one. It works.

  • 31. Richard W. Fitch  |  November 4, 2010 at 10:06 am

    When you have the US College of RC Bishops and the Quorum of Apostles(are whatever the LSD calls) funding your hate campaign, it's difficult for a group which does not have the power to coerce its member for huge financial support to compete

  • 32. Bob  |  November 4, 2010 at 10:06 am

    what do people think about Alan's action re fasting to push for LGBT to be added to the civil rights bill of 64

    any legal eagles got any opinion on that approach, and how doable it is????

  • 33. Lesbians Love Boies  |  November 4, 2010 at 10:07 am

    I can't watch it either. I don't like scary people…and Brian "Brown Shirt" is quite a monster.

  • 34. Lesbians Love Boies  |  November 4, 2010 at 10:08 am

    lol @ LSD!

  • 35. Sagesse  |  November 4, 2010 at 10:10 am

    I was thinking that very thing.

  • 36. Sarah  |  November 4, 2010 at 10:11 am

    I love it when the REAL truth wins, not the "truthy" truth. :)

  • 37. Jim  |  November 4, 2010 at 10:18 am

    Radical right extremists are preparing to assault the Minnesota constitution, making discrimination the law of the land:

    AP's headline:

    Gay marriage foes boosted by Minn. GOP takeover
    http://www.startribune.com/politics/106711753.htm

  • 38. Chris B  |  November 4, 2010 at 10:23 am

    If we are going back to what the founding fathers believed, then don't forget that the founding fathers also never intended for women to vote. Women couldn't even serve on juries, or sue for divorce, or go to college. The founding fathers would be shocked that there are female governors, doctors, university presidents, construction workers, CEOs, senators, judges, etc. (Let's not forget the same thing applies for blacks, asians, native americans, etc.)

    The founding fathers never intended a lot of things, but that is because they didn't understand a lot of things that we know today about people. They had a certain set of knowledge then, and we have new knowledge now.

    People can speculate as much as they want in this "founding fathers" game, but it is the wrong test. Do you think the founding fathers would have wanted the country to spend billions of dollars sending men to the moon? To build the internet? To fight alongside the British against the Germans? To regulate the speed on highways? To have an income tax? That women should be able to go to the beach in bikinis? For whites and blacks to marry?

    I dare say, the founding fathers would be shocked that a formerly-unwed mother, now married to a Hindi man is going around the country preaching about what "true marriage" is.

  • 39. Rhie  |  November 4, 2010 at 10:24 am

    Will catch up later. Oi.

  • 40. Jim  |  November 4, 2010 at 10:28 am

    The good news is that believers in freedom and equality will have a strong ally in Minnesota governor-to-be Gov. Mark Dayton.

    Dayton remains ahead of Tom Emmer (the anti-gay extremist candidate supported by NOM, Target and Best Buy) in the Minnesota vote count. There will be a mandatory recount of votes, but everything I have read says Dayton is in the position to be Minnesota's next governor.

  • 41. Ronnie  |  November 4, 2010 at 10:32 am

    I'm not a legal eagle….but I have actually contemplated doing a fast & It is still within the realm of possibility…for me anyway…Alice Paul did it for freedom, Ghandi did it for peace….Lt. Dan Choi did it for DADT repeal….It shows seriousness….I really do believe that the anti-Gay/Equality/American/Freedom side as well as the government think this is a joke & they are playing games with our lives…we are a part of the puzzle….without us….this country & this world are just an image with a bunch of cracks in it…& they need to start seeing that….<3…Ronnie

  • 42. Tasty Salamanders  |  November 4, 2010 at 10:35 am

    Ugh, I feel dirty and sick from watching that. Remind me to never watch Brian Brown gloating again.

  • 43. Ray in MA  |  November 4, 2010 at 10:42 am

    I, too, cannot wath this travesty. I observed this crap long enough and can eaily sense disgust.

    …oh! I'll view to just to prove my assumption…

  • 44. Lesbians Love Boies  |  November 4, 2010 at 10:44 am

    Very brave Ray!

  • 45. Ray in MA  |  November 4, 2010 at 10:48 am

    I reluctantly watched it…I was wrong… it was even more disgusting than I assumed.

    Amazing what you can get a person to say when you pay them $100K/year… money talks, and Brown is a pig at the banquet.

  • 46. Bruce  |  November 4, 2010 at 10:50 am

    I would say it's fair to at least take into account the thought processes of the Framers when it comes to how they constructed their legal system and why. After all, they knew what legal and social philosophies went into the construction of, say, the judiciary.

    What isn't fair is to take into account their thought processes regarding morality and values, as these are clearly not as durable as the legal principles of the Constitution itself.

  • 47. Ray in MA  |  November 4, 2010 at 10:55 am

    The PEOPLE in those "religions" fund the hate by participating as a member of such.

  • 48. Ray in MA  |  November 4, 2010 at 10:57 am

    I get it! LSD and LDS…same stat of mind! LOL!

  • 49. Ronnie  |  November 4, 2010 at 11:01 am

    Civil Rights Fast has released the video for Day 3 of Alan Bounville's Fast for Civil Rights & Equality…..<3…Ronnie:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W75s2Zppq54&fe

  • 50. Ray in MA  |  November 4, 2010 at 11:02 am

    No, I would say that they saw that "morality and values" are subjective and that an ignorant and uneducated majority can be swayed into in inappropriate slant and oppress a minority.

  • 51. Ray in MA  |  November 4, 2010 at 11:12 am

    Maybe I don't understand what's going on here… I hope that someone is guarding their coherence in these videos…

    Didn't Ghandi aquire the love and respect of masses of people before attempting a similar endeavor?

  • 52. Ray in MA  |  November 4, 2010 at 11:19 am

    A place that would re-elect Michele Bachmann proves that their is a mass of ignorance in this country that could cause havoc and mayhem in American society.

  • 53. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 4, 2010 at 11:38 am

    All great ideas Judy : ) Thank you!

  • 54. Richard A. Walter (s  |  November 4, 2010 at 11:58 am

    Yes, but according to NOM and their ilk, that only applies when the Constitution is misinterpreted to support a theocracy. Otherwise, the judges are activists.

  • 55. Straight Ally #3008  |  November 4, 2010 at 12:11 pm

    Here's one for ya, Brian Brown!

    (Yes, it contains a certain four-letter word) ;-D
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WUD-nhsmkw

  • 56. Fulton  |  November 4, 2010 at 12:12 pm

    The only way to fight the influence of money is education… Jefferson saw that: democracy depends on an educated and informed electorate.

    NOM successfully counts on the inability of modern citizens to analyze their message…to sift through the weasel words.

    And I wonder, do we need to take the high road? Or learn a thing or two from NOM and their ilk.
    I want to vote for the high road, but I grow tired of having to explain how universal health care helps not hinders national growth by freeing up the populace allowing them to rise above their station (and the electorate grows bored with the liberal's words and only hears bla bla bla) when all a conservative has to say is "personal responsibility" and "government take over" and and the electorate rushes to vote down universal health care.
    Sometimes, I wish I could be as much of a drama queen as NOM and throw out purple prose everywhere I go.

  • 57. Ed-M  |  November 4, 2010 at 12:29 pm

    Ugh… they really are Unamerican… I'd like to call them by a certain name of a certain party from a certain Central European country… or from a certain Eastern European-Asian country… but that would be invoking Godwin's law… but to make the point, they want a totalitarian theocracy where even the closet would be a luxury… and they want compliant kangaroo courts to enable and enforce it…. THis will lead to the downfall of the United States or the start of ten bad years until the rest of the US follows the lead of CA and the NE Corridor… And I couldn't bring myself to watch that video Ugh.

  • 58. Bob  |  November 4, 2010 at 12:35 pm

    I think it's more personal than that Ray, do you love this man, Alan, do you see him as part of our family, do you respect him for what he is doing??

    the question applies to each of us individually, think long and hard, the question is not about judging his actions,,,,,

    he's made a personal choice, do you love him, ??

  • 59. NOM makes me sick  |  November 4, 2010 at 1:00 pm

    I think I just might lose my supper…i shouldnt of hit the play button, that man is an arrogant prick who needs to understand that change IS happening…that we are opening up the people's hearts, and that he is violating the constitution in ways that I didnt think I'd ever have to see…STFU and leave our rights alone

  • 60. Bob  |  November 4, 2010 at 1:02 pm

    Ronnie, bravo, thanks for that honesty, I heart you, this guy is getting a lot of flack for a personal decision to do something for the cause, I to have contemplated a fast, I can't believe you just said that,

    This is serious fucking stuff, and I don't know how far he will be able to go, but it sounds like he has his bases covered with the living will thing and a doctor (confidential issues and all adressed)

    How long will it take for it to turn from a joke to reality??
    My feeling about a fast is , they are playing with our lives, someone has to get serious, what he is saying is if I can't be equal, I don't want to be here I am so hearing that, and feel very much the same. and from that feeling level I don't think the guy is joking,

    thanks agian for positng the updates I really appreciate it,

  • 61. Bruce  |  November 4, 2010 at 1:14 pm

    Oh, I think you misunderstand! I'm saying the Framers knew what they were doing when they established the judiciary as an independent branch without need to pay lip service to the voters. While we don't need to care what the Framers did with their slaves or women (we have advanced farther than that, at least) we can certainly have a look at how they constructed the federal judiciary for a good idea of what we should be aiming for.

  • 62. BK  |  November 4, 2010 at 6:11 pm

    *rant begin*

    Okay, ENOUGH. This guy is such… I want to cuss him out right now. I could stand everything he had to say–until now. Forcing the repeal of marriage equality??? What the heck?? This is absolutely rediculous! When can that guy have some sense knocked into him!? Watching Brian Brown (& NOM) videos should be the #1 priority for any marriage equality supporters/activists. Those vile creations would definitely get some blood boiling. Grr. >:(

    *rant end*

  • 63. Steve  |  November 5, 2010 at 12:36 am

    Yeah, it's important to review their ideas on how the government and its various branches are supposed to work. Those haven't really changed in the last two centuries.

    But at the same time, at least some of them were well aware that moral standards were subject to changes in society and thus aren't absolute or eternal.

  • 64. IT  |  November 5, 2010 at 2:55 am

    Compare the way the "activist judges" overruled the people in Loving v. Viriginia, with the tide we see now.

    Thing is, the country was even MORE opposed to interracial marriages than it is now opposed to same sex marriages–and continued to be so for over 20 years after the Loving Decision.

  • 65. Bill  |  November 5, 2010 at 2:56 am

    Judges will not take kindly to threats by bigots.

    I think this will actually work FOR us, not AGAINST us.

    No judge is going to be threatened into abandoning the very document they have been charged to uphold because a bunch of bigoted goons tell them so. Indeed, I believe this action in Iowa signals the beginning of the end for NOM.

  • 66. Richard A. Walter (s  |  November 5, 2010 at 7:31 am

    I pray that you are right, Bill. However, I am seeing too many signs of an impending theocracy in this country, and that scares me. There are too many people who are running for office, and getting elected, because they are espousing the same things NOM is espousing. Too many people are getting on the bandwagon of NOM, even if they are not contributing to NOM itself.

  • 67. Tim in Sonoma  |  November 5, 2010 at 7:41 am

    And all of this in the name of religion! Remember who is funding NOM? The Church's with deep pockets.
    Hipocracy, ignorance and animus spewing from the walls of religion in this so called "free country".
    *rolling eyes*

  • 68. Kamis  |  November 6, 2010 at 10:00 am

    Awesome. The best way to influence people is through personal contact! You can do as much as you want ranting and raving online, but you have the most impact on people by your example IRL.

    Thank you. :)

  • 69. Ray in MA  |  November 6, 2010 at 12:27 pm

    No. I don't know him and know nothing of him and I question his sanity. That is why I reiterate: as Ghandi comitted himself to starvation, he was known and well loved by millions of people.

  • 70. Michael Ejercito  |  November 11, 2010 at 5:58 am

    Yeah, they’d be shocked, but only because they understood so little about gays, lesbians, and same-sex relationships.

    Then I guess the founders of the Fourteenth Amendment never intended for the amendment to protect a right to marry someone of the same sex.

    William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall rejected the idea that the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment mandated same sex marriage.

    From Aaron Worthing .

    [G]iven his admission that the founders would be appalled by that gay marriage ruling …, how can he say that the constitution they wrote requires gay marriage?

  • 71. Michael Ejercito  |  November 11, 2010 at 6:00 am

    When that ground zero mosque is built, we're gonna seek funding there too.

  • 72. Ronnie  |  November 11, 2010 at 6:09 am

    Michael Ejercito is Homophobic un-American, inhuman, heartless, soulless, selfish Fascist Pig who knows NOTHING about the Constitution, the Founding Fathers, & American Freedom…He is amongst the repugnant Pigs who are trying to destroy America…He knows NOTHING about the 14th Amendment & the fact that it applies to ALL Americans…not just the Fascist Heterosexual Elitist ham-hocks like himself….I am a tax paying Americna citizen I will NOT be dined my 14th Amendment rights as naturally born openly Gay American Man because some homophobic trash has a problem with it….Mind your own business…get the f@#k out of our personal lives.. >( …Ronnie

  • 73. Ronnie  |  November 11, 2010 at 6:10 am

    NOT!!!!!!!!….<3…Ronnie

  • 74. Michael Ejercito  |  November 11, 2010 at 6:29 am

    He knows NOTHING about the 14th Amendment & the fact that it applies to ALL Americans…not just the Fascist Heterosexual Elitist ham-hocks like himself

    William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall, two United States Supreme Court Justices rejected the argument that the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment required legal recognition of same-sex marriage, believing that it did not even deserve a hearing.

  • 75. Ronnie  |  November 11, 2010 at 6:34 am

    I repeat….You know NOTHING about the 14th Amendment & the fact that it applies to ALL Americans…not just the Fascist Heterosexual Elitist ham-hocks like yourself…STOP INFRINGING ON MY RIGHTS..I will not be forced to live my life according to your definitions & beliefs you benighted Neanderthal…F@#K OFF!!!!….. >I ….Ronnie

  • 76. Michael Ejercito  |  November 11, 2010 at 6:46 am

    I understand the concept of stare decisis .

    If the Supreme Court unanimously rejected, on the merits, an appeal alleging that denial of a marriage license to a same sex couple violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment, then there is nowhere to appeal from there. The Supreme Court, including Marshall and Brennan, spoke.

  • 77. Ronnie  |  November 11, 2010 at 6:48 am

    I repeat….You know NOTHING about the 14th Amendment & the fact that it applies to ALL Americans…not just the Fascist Heterosexual Elitist ham-hocks like yourself…STOP INFRINGING ON MY RIGHTS..I will not be forced to live my life according to your definitions & beliefs you benighted Neanderthal…F@#K OFF!!!!….. >I ….Ronnie

  • 78. Ronnie  |  November 11, 2010 at 6:55 am

    In addition to that…If you, a homophobic piece of un-American detritus can marry the person you love under the law…then so can I …..and not how you demand I do… I will not have my relationship with the man I choose to live the rest of my life with disrespected by the Government that I pay into because you can't mind you own business…Get a life….GET OVER IT!!!!!…>( …Ronnie

  • 79. Michael Ejercito  |  November 11, 2010 at 7:27 am

    In addition to that…If you, a homophobic piece of un-American detritus can marry the person you love under the law…then so can I

    What you propose with the person whom you love is not a marriage.

  • 80. Ronnie  |  November 11, 2010 at 7:30 am

    Yes it is….. ; ) …Ronnie

  • 81. Ed-M  |  November 11, 2010 at 9:17 am

    William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall also ruled against the State of Georgia in the infamous Bowers v. Hardwick case. And when Marshall retired, he called a press conference and held that ruling up to especial derision.

    And various SCOTUS rulings on opposite-sex marriage since Brennan and Marshall turned down that same-sex couple's appeal of the SCOMN decision has reflected opposite-sex marriage's morphing from a union between two unequals for the purpose of procreation and transfer of property to a domestic partnership between two equals.

  • 82. Ed-M  |  November 11, 2010 at 9:37 am

    And I know the name of that case… Baker v. Nelson

  • 83. Richard A. Walter (s  |  November 11, 2010 at 2:38 pm

    So, you have finally admitted that you are one of the NOMbies, and therefore nothing more than a parroting sheeple who does not have the ability to think and reason for himself. Go back to the NOM site and post your little ignorancies. Oh, wait, I forgot. You CAN'T post there, because if commenting was allowed then anyone would be able to comment there, and NOM's sheeple might actually be exposed to the truth about the bigotry, hatred, and discrimination that they are paying for.

  • 84. Richard A. Walter (s  |  November 11, 2010 at 2:42 pm

    @ Michael the NOMbie Ejercito. There was also a ruling prior to Loving v. Virginia that went the same way with regard to interracial marriage, and that one was overturned by Loving. So don't pin too many hopes on your version of what this country is all about. We are NOT a theocracy, as much as you would like to have the Republic of Gilead here.

  • 85. Michael Ejercito  |  November 12, 2010 at 3:21 am

    @ Michael the NOMbie Ejercito. There was also a ruling prior to Loving v. Virginia that went the same way with regard to interracial marriage, and that one was overturned by Loving. So don’t pin too many hopes on your version of what this country is all about. We are NOT a theocracy, as much as you would like to have the Republic of Gilead here.

    If you are writing about Pace v. Alabama , that case could be distinguished from Loving in that the charges against the appellants were adultery and fornication, not marriage or attempted marriage.

    Sixty-five years later, the California Supreme Court overturned , on Fourteenth Amendment grounds, a state law prohibiting interracial marriage. In regards to Pace

    Respondent relies on Pace v. Alabama, 106 U.S. 583 [1 S.Ct. 637,
    27 L.Ed. 207], in which the United States Supreme Court held
    constitutional an Alabama statute imposing more severe punishment
    for adultery or fornication between a white person and a Negro
    than for such acts between individuals belonging to the same
    race. The Alabama statute also referred to intermarriage but the
    court considered the case as one dealing solely with adultery and
    nonmarital intercourse
    . We are not required by the facts of this
    case to discuss the reasoning of Pace v. Alabama except to state
    that adultery and nonmarital intercourse
    are not, like marriage,
    a basic right, but are offenses subject to various degrees of
    punishment.

  • 86. Michael Ejercito  |  November 12, 2010 at 3:26 am

    William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall also ruled against the State of Georgia in the infamous Bowers v. Hardwick case. And when Marshall retired, he called a press conference and held that ruling up to especial derision.

    this is true.

    Of course, Bowers can be distinguished from Baker v. Nelson (which Marshall and Brennan had joined) in that Bowers dealt with state prohibition of conduct, while Baker dealt with denial of state sanctification of conduct.

    And various SCOTUS rulings on opposite-sex marriage since Brennan and Marshall turned down that same-sex couple’s appeal of the SCOMN decision has reflected opposite-sex marriage’s morphing from a union between two unequals for the purpose of procreation and transfer of property to a domestic partnership between two equals.

    Why would that matter?

    The meaning of the 14th Amendment does not change. If it was insufficient to require state sanctification of same-sex unions as marriages in 1972, let alone 1868, it never will be.

  • 87. Ronnie  |  November 12, 2010 at 3:29 am

    Go away you benighted, Un-American, troglodyte…You have know idea what you are talking about, idiot….Get over yourself….Who the F@#k do you think are disrespecting the relationships of people who will not conform to your unrealistic definitions?….Get a life…. >( …Ronnie

  • 88. Ronnie  |  November 12, 2010 at 3:30 am

    Stop infringing on my 14th amendment rights….you homophobic pig….> ( …..Ronnie

  • 89. Becca  |  November 12, 2010 at 5:52 am

    Amendment XIV
    Section 1.

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Hahaha, see 14th amendment right dear sir. NO state shall MAKE or ENFORCE ANY law which shall abridge the PRIVILIGES or immunities of citizens of the United States. Correct me if I'm wrong, though I don't believe I am marriage is an action of two consenting adults declaring their unending love and devotion to one another for the rest of their lives…a privilege we are ALL born to.

  • 90. Ed-M  |  November 12, 2010 at 10:20 am

    Why are you calling legal recognition of same-sex marriages 'sanctification?' The State is not a church! Go read up on Thomas Jefferson and LEARN.

  • 91. Richard A. Walter (s  |  November 12, 2010 at 11:59 am

    I believe that our middle schooler is confusing "Sanctioning" with Sanctification."

  • 92. Ed-M  |  November 12, 2010 at 1:58 pm

    And the problem with middle school is they didn't teach civics and haven't since I was in junior high back in the early/mid 70s…yeah I'm dating myself here… and it's only gotten worse since then…

  • 93. Michael Ejercito  |  November 13, 2010 at 2:46 am

    And the problem with middle school is they didn’t teach civics and haven’t since I was in junior high back in the early/mid 70s…yeah I’m dating myself here… and it’s only gotten worse since then…

    Then apparently R. Michael Wetherbee and Lynn S. Castner, attorneys for Richard John Baker and James Michael McConnell did not learn civics, for when they wrote the jurisdictional statement to the U.S. Supreme Court for the appeal of the Minnesota Supreme Court decision in Baker v. Nelson , they asked as one of their questions "whether the appellee's refusal to sanctify appellants' marriage deprives appellants of their liberty to marry and of their property without due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment".

    The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected the questions in the jurisdictional statement on the merits. Four of the justices who rejected the argument, including Justice Brennan, had five years earlier voted to strike down Virginia's ban on interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia . Justice Marshall, known for his broader interpretation of due process and equal protection (he had joined Brennan in the dissents in Rostker v. Goldberg, Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma County, Crawford v. Board of Education , and Bowers v. Hardwick ) also rejected the questions in the Baker appeal.

  • 94. Ronnie  |  November 13, 2010 at 2:53 am

    Maude…..Stop infringing on my 14th amendment rights….you homophobic pig….> ( …..Ronnie

  • 95. Ed-M  |  November 13, 2010 at 8:33 am

    That attorney definitely used a bad choice for a word… The American Heritage Dictionary's definition of 'sanctify' does NOT include legal sanction. The closest they have is moral and social sanction. Society is not the government, it is the whole of the community… legal sanction has to come first, social and moral sanction will follow… maybe it will take decades like in South Africa… and morality in this country has to change… the way it is now, it means anything goes for male heterosexuals, be faithful for female heterosexuals (although that's slowly changing to anything goes too)… and for LGBT people nothing is permitted! Except unnatural heterosexuality.

    Damnit, get off your high horse, move out of the way and let us obtain our 1st and 14th Amendment Rights!

  • 96. Jay  |  December 6, 2010 at 11:26 am

    It won't be a long wait to the day pedophiles will be able to publicly fight for their rights, going by this piece.

  • 97. Ronnie  |  December 6, 2010 at 11:31 am

    no not really….. : / ….Ronnie

  • 98. Anonygrl  |  December 6, 2010 at 11:55 am

    Don't you find it interesting how trolls seem to show up, post in old threads, then vamoose?

    I guess they feel safer that way than coming into a current thread and trying to hold a reasonable conversation with us.

    :)

  • 99. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 6, 2010 at 6:48 pm

    Hey, Troll! Hate to tell you this, but you are way out of your middle-school league! What happened–did Mommy and Daddy leave you unattended for a few minutes?

  • 100. Ronnie  |  December 7, 2010 at 12:49 am

    I find it annoying, immature, & cowardly…<3…Ronnie

  • 101. Ed-M  |  December 8, 2010 at 11:26 am

    Of course if people like you had your way, people will still be having a cow over marriage equality for LGBTIQ people, even if heterosexual pedophiles, polygamists and zoophiles get the right to intergenerational marriage, plural marriage and human-animal marriage recognized with no backlash from society at large.

    And there ARE haterosexuals who approve of pedophilia, polygamy and zoophilia… so long as it's "straight." Grrrhhh… STOP TREADING ON ME AND MY TRIBE!!! >-|

  • 102. Michael Ejercito  |  December 9, 2010 at 1:58 am

    Yes, there are.

    And the government infringes on their ability to indulge such practices.

  • 103. Ann S.  |  December 9, 2010 at 2:06 am

    Children and sheep are unable to give informed consent, Michael. Can you really not see the difference between raping children and loving relations between consenting adults?

  • 104. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 9, 2010 at 2:10 am

    And you are just dumb enough to believe that pedophiles have the right to rape children simply because the children they are raping are not the same gender as the rapist! YOu are one very sick, disgusting, repugnant imitation of a man!

  • 105. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 9, 2010 at 2:11 am

    In fact, I think it is time to give your family's section of the gene pool a good long hot clorox bath to clean it up some.

  • 106. Michael Ejercito  |  December 9, 2010 at 3:30 am

    Matt Franck quotes from a Law Review Article .

    So before we can conclude that some marriage policy violates the Equal Protection Clause, or any other moral or constitutional principle, we have to determine what marriage actually is and why it should be recognized legally in the first place.

    most revisionists seem to share with advocates of the conjugal view, [the view] that marriage has a nature independent of legal conventions. In this way, the crucial question–the only one that can settle this debate–remains for both sides: What is marriage?

  • 107. Ronnie  |  December 9, 2010 at 5:48 am

    Go away Michael Ejercito, you un-American Fascist Pig….. >( ….Ronnie

  • 108. Ronnie  |  December 9, 2010 at 5:52 am

    Marriage is about LOVE……..Get over it!!!….Fascist, Homophobic, un-American TROLL!!!!….. >( …Ronnie

  • 109. Ronnie  |  December 9, 2010 at 6:19 am

    Marriage is a lifelong commitment between two consenting adults who willingly promise to LOVE & honor each other until death do they part. They promise to share their life with each other in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health, and to forsake all others that would otherwise receive the same affections they promise to give each other. How they share the rest of their futures together is their personal choice, such as starting a family by whatever means necessary to do so either though physical procreation (do a shot), adoption/fostering, or surrogacy. Other personal life choices the couple is free to make is location to spend their life together, their relationship dynamic, exchange or non-exchange of names, religious as well as political affiliations, allocation of financial funds, & more.

    But what it really all comes down to is….NOBODY has a say in the matter except the two individuals in the relationship…so really it can all be deduced that you should MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS HOME WRECKER!!!!…. ; ) …Ronnie

  • 110. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 9, 2010 at 12:07 pm

    Lovely how you select only those few texts which, when taken out of context, seem to support your ignorant viewpoints. However, you must really remember that when a text is taken out of context, it becomes nothing more than a pretext. Now, go back to your homework before someone tells your Mommy and Daddy what their bad little boy is doing on sites that are for adults!

  • 111. Ed-M  |  December 11, 2010 at 10:48 am

    Michael, you seem to think that being gay (or lesbian, bi, trans, etc) is on an equal or lower plane than those things. I don't know what to think of you… a plain old garden-variety hatero or someone who'll condone the most problematic or disgusting practices so long as there are no same-sex partners involved. I don't care if you crawl back under the rock you emerged from, just go away!!! >(

  • 112. Ed-M  |  December 11, 2010 at 10:52 am

    They had same-sex marriage in the Roman Empire before the Christian Emperor Theodosius I criminalized it in 342 ce. Had Christians not fucked with the nature of marriage we wouldn't be needing this debate, which your side is intent on poisoning. Deal with it!

  • 113. Colon Cleanser&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 7:20 am

    Learn About Colon Cleanse…

    […]the time to read or visit the content or sites we have linked to below the[…]…

  • 114. porn&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 3:42 pm

    The best website…

    […]here are some links to sites that we link to because we think they are worth visiting[…]…

  • 115. Free online games&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 3:43 pm

    Watch it…

    […]Interesting info[…]…

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!