We tend to overreact every time a religious crackpot farts in our direction.

On behalf of the anti-gay National Organization of Marriage, Brian S. Brown’s latest money-beg is titled gay ‘marriage’ ruling again in spotlight with the above graphic.

Personally, I believe that marriage equality is safe. There is no case before any federal court challenging Obergefell v. Hodges and marriage equality has enormous public support. Another issue that someone like Brown would face is coming up with a secular argument.

We are over five years out from Obergefell and none of the arguments in opposition posed by religious conservatives have come to pass. Their only argument is that God does not approve and that won’t fly.

However, state and municipal nondiscrimination protections are not safe. Alito and Thomas in particular are looking for a means of allowing for more religious exemptions to otherwise applicable law. That would, in effect, overturn Employment Division v. Smith.

Scalia wrote the opinion for the majority in Smith and was quite explicit that such exemptions make many laws impossible to enforce. Suppose someone has a religious objection to paying taxes?

We will know more in June (possibly sooner) when the Court rules on Fulton v. Philadelphia which is about a challenge by Catholic Social Services to Philadelphia’s nondiscrimination law. A narrow ruling could favor CSS while preserving Smith.

Getting back to Mr. Brown

For the second time in just six weeks, a US Supreme Court Justice has made comments critical of the Court’s imposition of gay ‘marriage’ on the nation in its 2015 Obergefell v Hodges ruling. In a keynote address to the influential Federalist Society, Justice Samuel Alito condemned the Court’s gay ‘marriage’ ruling as targeting Americans who believe in traditional marriage, particularly people of faith. Arguing that the Obergefell ruling is an example of a trend where religious liberty is becoming a ‘second-class right’, Alito said the situation is so dire that people “can’t say marriage is the union of one man and one woman.” Alito went on to say that the hostile treatment and dismissal of the religious liberty rights of people who support marriage “should not have come as a surprise” after the Supreme Court invalidated dozens of state statutes and constitutional provisions defining marriage as one man and one woman.

Alito is simply repeating some of the (losing) arguments he made in opposition to United State v. Windsor and Obergefell v. Hodges. If Brown accurately quoted Alito then the justice is more far gone that I thought. People “can’t say that marriage is the union of one man and one woman?” When? Where? That’s crazy talk.

Alito and Thomas are both religious extremists who tend to rule in accordance with Catholic dogma which is supposed to be impermissible. The nation continues to confirm justices who should not be confirmed.

According to exit polls, twice as many gay people voted for Trump in 2020 then did so in 2016. It is spectacularly stupid to vote against our own interests. Their votes came after the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to sit on the Supreme Court for life. What were those miserable house fags thinking?

I will be very pleased when Richard Grenell is gone from government in January.

Brian Brown gets right to the point:

Thanks to some generous donors who have come together to offer a $100,000 matching gift fund through the end of the year, every donation we receive will DOUBLE our ability to help fight to restore marriage by reversing the illegitimate Obergefell ruling. Can I count on your help?

Matching gifts are almost invariably nonexistent. It’s a scam. The holier-than-thou Brian S. Brown is content to fleece his own donors while railing against the constitutional rights of gay people. Glaring hypocrisy.

After the first request for money and some verbose blather about Clarence Thomas:

We now have two Supreme Court Justices,—Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas—who are openly questioning the wisdom of the Court’s anti-constitutional ruling in Obergefell and seemingly inviting a challenge to it. With the addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, we at NOM believe there is now a strong majority on the Court to overturn Obergefell if the right case is brought before it. We are determined to do just that, but we need your help.

I cannot figure a way that NOM could ever have Article III standing to bring a case to overturn Obergefell and it certainly does not have the financial horsepower to do so. As I said, I cannot see the majority of the Supreme Court overturning a recent ruling with substantial public support because God disapproves.

Brown admits that he really doesn’t have a strategy formulated:

The strategy behind trying to bring a case before the US Supreme Court to overturn the Obergefell gay ‘marriage’ ruling is complex. We can’t simply file a lawsuit and ask the Court to take it up. First, we need to present a real and present controversy that requires a judicial ruling to resolve. What that issue might be requires a great deal of thought and coordination with allies and policymakers in several key states. It could be a state law passed by a supportive Legislature, an executive order or regulation issued by a supportive Governor, or possibly even a law enacted directly by voters via a ballot measure. Our team is working hard to evaluate all the options.

Another risk for Brown is that, by the time a case could make its way to the Supreme Court, the composition of the Court could change. Call me overly optimistic if you like but Brown’s rhetoric is nothing but a pretext to ask for money — which NOM will undoubtedly piss away.

National Organization for Marriage has been especially inept in litigation. NOM spent about $700,000 to sue the IRS in order to recover $50,000. They have lost numerous lawsuits and have yet to prevail in one.

I am not losing any sleep over this. We tend to overreact every time a religious crackpot farts in our direction.

Related content: