“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.”
— Albert Einstein
American Family Association’s “news” site has never been known for sharp intellectual discourse. The hate group is more interested in appealing to its conservative Baptist base than it is in calling upon its readers to utilize critical thinking.
In a piece this morning we are provided with commentary from NOM’s Christopher Plante and Diane Gramley of the American Family Association of Pennsylvania.
On LinkedIn Christopher Plante claims to be the Regional Director of National Organization for Marriage in Rhode Island. I have no idea what that means. Today, according to AFA’s site:
“The Supreme Court has indicated that it believes the marriage issue should be decided by the people of the states,” explains the NOM spokesman. “It indicated that in the Defense of Marriage Act ruling of last summer, the Windsor case. [And] it indicated that when it imposed a stay on the Utah decision.”
The Supreme Court didn’t do any of those things. Justice Kennedy’s opinion in United States v. Windsor was crystal clear; States get to regulate marriage but “must respect the constitutional rights of citizens.” Kennedy then cites Loving v. Virginia. Then to suggest that a stay, as in Utah, is anything other than a stay is highly disingenuous. The stay says:
The application for stay presented to Justice Sotomayor and
by her referred to the Court is granted. The permanent
injunction issued by the United States District Court for the
District of Utah, case No. 2:13-cv-217, on December 20, 2013, is
stayed pending final disposition of the appeal by the United
States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Where does it state anything even remotely similar to what Plante claims. As Lyle Denniston explains, “The order, however, cannot be interpreted as a dependable indication of
how the Court will rule on the issue when it finally decides to do so
Diane Gramley of the American Family Association of Pennsylvania manages to trump Plante in the same article:
“Congress has the ability in the U.S. Constitution to begin impeachment proceedings,” she explains. “When you look at these judges – not only Judge Jones here in Pennsylvania, but other federal judges who are handing down these decisions – their actions are unconstitutional.”
Apparently Ms. Gramley believes that judges should be impeached if they render rulings that Ms. Gramley doesn’t like. I have no idea why Ms. Gramley thinks that the decisions of 14 judges since Windsor are all unconstitutional. Gramley continues with more inanity but you get the idea.
Both of these wizards are easy targets yet they are both spokespeople for the organizations they serve. Odd. When did adult supervision become something so scarce?