• fiona64

    When the bigots lose on the home front (and yes, it is nothing but bigotry, pure and simple) they export their nonsense abroad. Brown is taking a page from Scott Lively’s book here. Both of them are angry little men whom I strongly suspect of being closet-cases.

  • billfalls

    Unfortunately, some news organizations play into the hands of these bigots by giving them a platform. Each side of the “debate” is given equal time, and the interviewer rarely bothers to challenge the antis’ distortions and untruths.

    • Arekushieru

      And, even IF the anti-gay marriage side WAS given a smaller platform from which to speak, the fact that this position is so entrenched in the mainstream narrative, it’s a given that they would STILL be considered of equal weight/worth. Ugh. It’s not surprising, however, that the same consideration would not be given that of a minority opinion if it were to be the one to lose out on the unequal platforms given, no matter how distasteful I find it.

      Two examples of one of the above: Global warming; The mainstream idea is that humans reign supreme and are not responsible for any damage that may come as a result of their actions, no matter how indirectly. When a report, upheld by an overwhelming number of peer-reviewed, accredited sources, was given that supported the MINORITY opinion, equal weight was given to a minimal number of sources that published a report that supported the mainstream PUBLIC opinion; Also, the number of deaths from illegal abortion; Bernard Nathanson was an outlier. Yet his position was not only given EQUAL weight but MORE, as well. Ugh (again).

  • Margaret Whitestone

    Awww, sounds like Brown and his ilk will soon have to get real jobs.

    • chaskins

      I’d really like Brian Brown to go bankrupt but he’ll just get some conservative think tank position. Or maybe he can bother to spend some time at home raising his eight children instead of exporting his hate, shit and discontent.

      • Margaret Whitestone

        Wouldn’t that be nice.

  • lady_black

    “For example, when Oppenheimer asked why the National Organization for Marriage has never lobbied against so-called no-fault divorce, Brown replied, “Because you believe something is wrong does not mean you make it illegal.” ”
    That pretty much sums it up. The Christian Right will continue playing the victim card. This doesn’t concern them. Nobody has the right to judge anyone else’s marriage.

    • Arekushieru

      Heh, he made the case AGAINST himself. Oops. Only difference is maintaining and making something illegal. These people aren’t big on logic are they?

  • http://batman-news.com Gordon Cash

    Everybody seems to think it is inevitable that SCOTUS will rule on same-sex marriage (which I wholeheartedly support, in spite of not being gay myself), but here is a thought I haven’t seen expressed elsewhere. In, say, the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood cases, SCOTUS agreed to hear the cases primarily because lower federal courts looked at the same statutes and drew opposite conclusions. SCOTUS is the logical place to sort out such a disagreement. In the matter of same-sex marriage, though, every single federal court (now 12 or 13 of them, I think) that has ruled on the matter since the SCOTUS DOMA decision has reached the same conclusion, namely, that banning same-sex marriage violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment. Why would SCOTUS agree to hear such a matter? What is the issue for them to resolve? On what grounds could anyone request a review, other than that every single federal court has decided wrongly?
    I don’t think that’s going to happen. I suggest that SCOTUS will decline to hear the case at all and let the lower-court rulings stand. You heard it here first.

    • chaskins

      You know I’ve had a similar thought. It’s one of the legal regrets of Roe V Wade. The country was moving rapidly in a direction that made it legal and the SCOTUS decision has been cited as an example of judicial overreach as well as poorly reasoned (I agree with Justice Ginsberg on this point). In any case, it’s possible, as there are no states left without a lawsuit pending as of this week, that they could let the circuits decide. That may change if several circuit courts decide in favor and some decide against. However I personally would love it if were Utah’s case that garners it for the whole country. Just a little payback for Prop 8.

      • Arekushieru

        Chaskins, was almost ready to lambaste you for disagreeing with the Roe Vs Wade decision. Good thing I looked up Ginsburg before I did that. Yikes! I now TOTALLY agree with you.

        • chaskins

          Yeah it’s interesting reading isn’t it. It’s a case of agreeing with the outcome but not the reasoning. It’s not good case law and has left it open to being challenged and whittled away at. The Windsor case was stronger than the Prop 8 case IMO and though I had initially hoped CA would be the Loving v Virginia of SSM I can see why legally it’s proper that it wasn’t. I’m not a lawyer but I love law and listened to the entirety of Windsor and prop 8 arguments. Some was over my head but it was fascinating stuff. I highly recommend it. Whatever happens next will be interesting I’ve thoroughly enjoyed these last two years.

Mobile Theme