As I have written before, none of the people associated with National Organization for Marriage have ever worked for anyone before. When they are apart from their lawyers and PR consultants, these folks are bewildered. They are just not terribly bright.

Brian Brown was on the Mike Huckabee Show last week. According to Brown:

There is no constitutional right, our Founders did not create some sort
of constitutional right to redefine marriage and I think the Court’s
going to rule that way.

No Mr. Brown. No. Presumably, Mr. Brown is referring to the Constitution. The document doesn’t address marriage in any way whatsoever. As Mr. Brown should know, eighteenth century marriage was a whites only institution. Furthermore, marriage was largely a conveyance of property where that property consisted of a dowry and the bride. The concept of a father giving away the bride had a literal meaning. As Mr. Brown should also know, the Supreme Court has determined that marriage is a basic civil right. It gets worse as Brown continues:

[NOM’s opponents] are arguing that states like Massachusetts that have passed same-sex
marriage, that somehow that preempts Congress from defining marriage as
the union of a man and a woman and that because the states define marriage the federal government has to recognize that. So they’re
essentially making a strange states rights’ argument, but the federal
government and our duly-elected representatives don’t have a right to
define marriage.

No Mr. Brown. No. The several challenges to DOMA start with a common basis predicated on the Equal Protection Clause and the federal government’s
consistent deference to each state’s definition of marriage prior to the
enactment of DOMA. We now have trial court rulings in both Gill v Office of Personnel Management and Massachusetts v US.

Judge Tauro (appointed by Nixon BTW) found in Gill that section three of the Defense of Marriage Act violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In Massachusetts v US he held that the same section of DOMA violates the Tenth Amendment and falls outside Congress’ authority under the Spending Clause of the Constitution. Both of these decisions were stayed on appeal. It gets worse as Brown continues:

On the other hand, they’re arguing in the Perry case, the Proposition 8
case, that not only does the government have a right to define
marriage – there’s an obligation in the U.S. Constitution to recognize and redefine marriage as same-sex marriage.

No Mr. Brown. No. You really need to read the briefs. Perhaps read Judge Walker’s ruling which is based on violations to the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, Walker concluded that California had no rational basis or vested interest in denying gays and lesbians marriage licenses. It gets worse as Brown continues:

So they’re trying to argue two different things and I think that’s why
taking all the cases all at once will expose all of the sort of
hypocrisy going on in these two very different and mutually exclusive
arguments they’re making .

No Mr. Brown. No. You are inventing arguments that have not been made. Furthermore DOMA and Prop 8 are two different issues. Do you get that? If these dullards cannot find it in scripture, they are lost.

Enhanced by Zemanta

By David Cary Hart

Retired CEO. Formerly a W.E. Deming-trained quality-management consultant. Now just a cranky Jewish queer. Gay cis. He/Him/His.