September 19, 2008

Anti-Gay Blog Cherry-Picks Varnum v. Brien for “Six Consequences” Workaround

My daily Google Alert for “mean-spirited, ignorant, and/or deliberately misleading homophobes who want to permanently classify me as three-fifths of a person, probably because they can’t do it to African-Americans anymore, and LGBTs are the last group they can piss on to make themselves feel better about their sorry, narrowminded existence you couldn’t pay me enough money to live through, and if I’d been born them, I’d shoot myself in order to make the world a better place”…

I’m kidding. It wasn’t anything in my Google Alert (for, simply, “Proposition 8″) that caught my eye this morning, but a Google query in my server logs that didn’t fit in with the thousands of hits from queries for “how stupid is sarah palin” and “black lesbians” and “why does kkk vote republican” (although there haven’t been any searches yet for “folsom street leathermen video whip beat naked,” so I guess Petey LaBarbera hasn’t sat down at his computer today):

“milk” and proposition 8

My first thought was: I wonder if Gus Van Sant finally kicked in some cash to defeat Proposition 8?

Hitting the corresponding Google link, I didn’t find any such news — but I did find a hit for a pro-Prop 8 blog, yesproposition8.blogspot.com/, citing — get this — Harvey Milk Day as yet another justification for supporting Prop 8 and denying us our rights:

More and more, the No crowd is using public schools as propaganda engines. The defeat of Proposition 8 will ensure continual indoctrination.

Okaaaaaaaaaaay.

Never mind that Mark Leno introduced A.B. 2567 back in February — three months before the California Supreme Court overturned the state’s ban on marriage equality — and never mind that Harvey Milk Day has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with equal marriage, Proposition 8, Proposition 22, or the man in the bloody moon for that matter.

I shouldn’t be surprised that any anti-gay crusader would grasp for the most vacuous evidence of “indoctrination” (If my children have to breathe the same air as homosexuals, they will be indoctrinated!) — such are the unthinking, singleminded robots, fools, and downright liars fueling the idiocy of all anti-gay propaganda, from “Six Consequences If Proposition 8 Fails” to Fred Phelps’ conviction that “God hates fags” because America refuses to kill queers to Jerry Falwell’s certainty that “the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America” were responsible for a bunch of freedom-hating Saudi religious extremists (gosh! the irony!) of flying planes into the World Trade Center and killing 3,000 people.

So, I figure, if this anti-equality blogger will go as far as trying to connect Harvey Milk Day to the downfall of civilization, there ought to be some other real turd nuggets in the rest of this genius’s posts.

And, I thought: I bet I find “Mormon” written all over this blog.

It didn’t take long to confirm that conclusion:

August 29, 2008

I recently read The Divine Institution of Marriage…

Ah, yes, “The Divine Institution of Marriage” — the Mormon church’s attempt to clarify its full-frontal attack on gay and lesbian couples, which is essentially based on a single argument, repeated in more ways to put you into a coma than a year’s worth of “Lawrence Welk Show” reruns: that same-sex marriage is inferior because it cannot result in the production of biological children, and that Mormons should oppose same-sex marriage because children should only be raised in homes with one male parent and one female parent.

Yep, you read that right: The LDS’s alleged rationale is that same-sex marriage is bad because it does not produce children — and those children that can’t exist in the first place belong in straight households.

(Hey, it’s their knuckleheaded argument, not mine.)

August 27, 2008: The blogger links to a Mormon anti-marriage video on YouTube.

And, throughout the rest of the blog (which has been in existence only since August), the blogger notes the days he’s gone door-to-door to canvass for Prop 8.

If this guy’s not a Mormon, he should be.

Oh, but don’t get the idea that this dude is a homophobe — he’s got close, personal friends who are gay, so he can’t be a homophobe!

Rrrrrrrrrrright.

But now we come to the real poop in the pool: “Summary of Potential Legal Consequences of SSM,” in which Mister “Some of My Best Friends Are Gay” quotes “an amicus brief filed by The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty in an Iowa lawsuit which provided the court with an explanation of what dangers SSM poses to religious liberties.” Since he got his ass kicked by Tom Bestor in the comments section after posting the “Six Consequences” lies (I posted a comment too, and invited the blogger to surprise me by approving it), I guess he had to find something that hasn’t been debunked point by point, and sounds, you know, reeeeeal official-like, being an amicus brief and all, which is, you know, italicized, so it must be the ultimate authority, right?

Let me tell you about that amicus brief.

First, let’s get our terms straight (so to speak): An amicus curiae — “friend of the court” — brief is an opinion filed by a person or (usually) an organization, often not a party to litigation, but who believes he/she/it has certain information that may help the court render a decision in a specific case, and/or believes his/her/its own interest may be affected by that decision. (As I always say, I’m no lawyer, but I know my basics.)

The case in question is Varnum v. Brien, described most succinctly by the NCLR:

Six Iowa same-sex couples brought suit seeking the right to marry under the Iowa constitution. In August 2007, the Iowa District Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to deny same-sex couples access to marriage. The opposition filed for an appeal and a “stay” on the decision the next day, which were granted. The case is now pending before the highest state court in the state court system. Lambda Legal represents the couples. NCLR submitted an amicus brief with co-counsel McGuire Woods LLP and Joseph Barron, Esq. on behalf of several professors of family law in support of the couples, addressing the use of social science research in constitutional cases.

Here’s the court’s conclusion (full doc in PDF):

The Court concludes that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law but Defendant is not. Because $595.2(1) violates Plaintiffs’ due process and equal protection rights for the aforementioned reasons including, but not limited to, the absence of a rational relationship to the achievement of any legitimate governmental interest, the Court concludes it is unconstitutional and invalid. Couples, such as Plaintiffs, who are otherwise qualified to marry one another may not be denied licenses to marry or certificates of marriage or in any other way prevented from entering into a civil marriage pursuant to Iowa Code Chapter 595 by reason of the fact that both persons comprising such a couple are of the same sex.

$595.2(1) must be nullified, severed and stricken from Chapter 595 and all remaining provisions of Chapter 595 must be read and applied in a gender neutral manner so as to permit same-sex couples to enter into a civil marriage pursuant to said chapter.

ORDER

It Is Therefore Ordered, Adjudged, and Decreed as follows:

1. Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and Defendant’s opposing motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

2. Iowa Code §595.2(1) is hereby nullified, severed and stricken fiom Iowa Code Chapter 595.

3. All remaining provisions of Iowa Code Chapter 595 are to be interpreted in a gender-neutral manner so as not to exclude couples of the same sex from eligibility for a marriage license.

4. Defendant is hereby enjoined from refusing to issue marriage licenses to Plaintiffs or any other same-sex couples who a) are otherwise eligible for said licenses pursuant to Chapter 595 as amended and interpreted by this order, and b) who properly apply for such licenses.

5. Court costs are hereby taxed to Defendant.

Dated this 30th day of August, 2007.

[signed]
ROBERT B. HANSEN, JUDGE
Fifth Judicial District of Iowa

In other words, the blogger is quoting an amicus brief that presented “no genuine issues of material fact,” in a case in which equality won, and the anti-gay side lost.

Our little friend states, with no qualifiers, that this brief is an “explanation of what dangers SSM poses to religious liberties.” If you read the entire brief, you’ll see it’s little more than the same fearmongering and unsubstantiated projections underlying the “Six Consequences” propaganda (Christians will be persecuted! We’re all going to get suuuuuuuuuuuuuuued by the homos!) — and is probably the original basis for “Six Consequences.”

It’s a steaming load. But it’s worth the read if you’d like to see how lawyers with an agenda try to prop up the anti-gay attacks with a lot of hot air — and lots of boring footnotes so that it all looks real important and legal-like.

Wait. How can I assume the lawyers who wrote this brief have an agenda?

Because it was written by Anthony R. Picarello, Jr., and Roger T. Severino.

Picarello is general counsel for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Now, what do you think the USCCB’s position on marriage equality is?

Uh-huh.

And Severino? He can speak for himself — and has:

The experience of legalizing same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, and of civil unions elsewhere, cannot be ignored. It shows that, even with the best of intentions, legalizing same-sex marriage will seriously undermine the religious freedom citizens have enjoyed since the founding.

Although the First Amendment protects dissenting houses of worship from being forced to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies against their will, that is not the end of the story — it is barely even the beginning.

Simply changing the definition of marriage opens the door to a flood of lawsuits against dissenting religious institutions based on state public accommodation and employment laws that prohibit marital status and sexual orientation discrimination.

Additionally, religious institutions that refuse to recognize a new state-imposed definition could be stripped of access to government programs, have their tax exemption denied and even lose the ability to solemnize civil marriages.

We need only look at Massachusetts for a preview of what to expect. There, in 2004, justices of the peace who refused to solemnize same-sex unions due to religious objections were summarily fired.

It did not matter that other justices of the peace were available to do the job because, by Massachusetts law, same-sex unions were now entitled to equal treatment. A religious belief became a firing offense. …

Blah blah blah Ginger blah Ginger blah blah blah blah…

You’ve heard all this crap before.

Picarello and Severino wrote the Varnum v. Brien brief on behalf of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which bills itself as a “nonprofit, nonpartisan, and interfaith” “public interest law firm protecting the free expression of all religious traditions.”

I find that extremely difficult to believe.

What would you call a law firm that bestows “Courage in Defense of Religious Liberty” awards on equality-hating religious zealots like Mitt Romney and convicted felon and certified wingnut Chuck Colson (award to Elie Wiesel notwithstanding)? I know what I’d call it, but I won’t.

Then you’ve got Becket Fund CEO Kevin “Seamus” Hasson, who…

…worked for the Reagan administration handling church-state matters in the U.S. Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel under Samuel Alito, whom he calls a “stickler for the law.”

…and who insists that the “right answer” to the war between the Christian Right and secularists is “the Catholic answer. It’s natural for us to seek the true and the good — to seek God. The religious impulse to seek God flows from the human intellect and the human heart. Therefore, religious expression is natural to human culture.”

So, in Hasson’s world, “religious liberty” doesn’t extend to liberty from religion.

Hasson is also a hypocritical flip-flopper. In the 2006 interview linked above, he stated:

“The Becket Fund is different from everything else out there. We defend religious liberty and only religious liberty. We don’t get involved in the marriage issue, pro-family stuff or pro-life cases.”

Oh, really now? Then why did the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty just publish an entire book — Same-Sex Marriage: Emerging Conflicts — and in pushing the book, conclude that “legalization of same-sex marriage poses a direct threat to the civil liberties of religious Americans who oppose homosexuality”?

(Just guess who one of the three editors of Same-Sex Marriage: Emerging Conflicts is? Yep: Anthony R. Picarello, Jr.)

If you’d like to read the last chapter of Same-Sex Marriage: Emerging Conflicts, it’s available in PDF right here.

Granted, the issue is explored from both sides — but why publish such a book if you have no intention of getting involved “in the marriage issue”?

Sounds like the Becket Fund is neck-deep in “the marriage issue.” Well, why not? It’s a great way to sell books.

The punch line to all this would be pretty funny if we LGBTs weren’t the target of this crusade:

You’ve got a Mormon blogger citing Catholic lawyers who are pumping up an anti-gay crusade headed by evangelicals who discriminate against Jews.

The only thing all these groups agree on is that gays are bad and should be persecuted and legislated out of society without recourse, through all the ballot measures money can buy.

And all these groups (except for Jews, who are largely out of the picture, and don’t believe in hell anyway) think they’re right and everybody else is wrong and going straight to hell, and nobody involved in the anti-gay crusade realizes they’re all just chumps (Chino Blanco’s apt word) for the same ugly little man behind the curtain.

And when all is said and done, they’ll all go back to hating one another again.

Politics, as they say, makes strange bedfellows. But it should come as no surprise to anyone that such natural enemies as the Mormons, the Catholics, and the born-again-Taliban would band together for the sole purpose of attacking gay people, because this is what they do.

This is what religious extremism is: Forging an identity through a common bogeyman.

I keep urging you to read Chris Hedges, and I hope you have by now. My dog-eared copy of American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America is the only thing that’s saved my sanity when trying to figure out how the fervently religious can preach the love of Jesus yet be so damned hostile to us, and attack us, aggressively, and repeatedly — when we have never done anything to them, much less engage in all this imaginary “Christian persecution” they keep screaming about.

Now I understand why. The path to understanding is what I imagine it might be like to consume a lot of drugs and alcohol, stay awake for a week, get abducted by a UFO, and then stay up another week and watch Eraserhead fifty times in a row. It’s that convoluted and unbelievable — but the final, chilling, horrifying truth is very, very simple:

They need somebody to hate, or they don’t know who they are.

Posted by: Sapphocrat

Permalink | |