Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

NOM Is Furious — Just Furious!

Jim Burroway

July 8th, 2010

Reading this press release from the National Organization for Marriage made my spit my beer through my nose:

“Under the guidance of Elena Kagan’s brief that she filed when she was Solicitor General, Obama’s justice department deliberately sabotaged this case,” charged Brian Brown, President of NOM, referring to the Justice Department’s brief which described DOMA as discriminatory. Despite the explicit language in DOMA that the law was designed to protect children’s right to their mothers and fathers, the judge disavowed that DOMA has anything to do with responsible procreation. “With only Obama to defend DOMA, this federal judge has taken the extraordinary step of overturning a law passed by huge bipartisan majorities and signed into law by Pres. Clinton in 1996. A single federal judge in Boston has no moral right to decide the definition of marriage for the people of the United States,” Brown continued.

“Does this federal judge want to start another culture war?” asked Maggie Gallagher, Chairman of NOM. “Does he really want another Roe. v. Wade? The simple fact is that the right of the federal government to define marriage for the purposes of its federal law and federal territories has been clear since the late 19th century, when Congress banned polygamy. Only an incompetent defense could have lost this case. We expect to win in a higher court.”

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0

Scott
July 8th, 2010 | LINK

Oh poor Brian and Mags. Let’s take bets on what they’ll do for a living in 5 years when they can’t make an income telling lies and getting press. I’m betting on window washer for Brian and Nutri-system spokesperson for Maggie.

Either that or she’ll be helping run the Indian restaurant she and her husband (that she never talks about) will have to open when she’s not getting any more donations to a lost cause.

Jordan
July 8th, 2010 | LINK

Google Reader inserted an ad for traditionalvalues.us below this post. It asks if I think “homosexuals should have special rights” and invites me to “Take the American Morality Survey.” Fail.

JTW
July 8th, 2010 | LINK

You should point out that NOM isn’t a party to either lawsuit, so the statement “We expect to win in a higher court” makes absolutely no sense in this context. Who exactly is the “we”? The only defendants are agencies of the federal government.

Mike
July 8th, 2010 | LINK

Oh god, she’s fumed. Pint of Ben & Jerry’s for Maggie, quick.

JT
July 8th, 2010 | LINK

That’s right, a federal judge appointed by a Republican president shouldn’t be able to decide the definition of marriage. That should be left to a group of rabid Catholics with a tour bus and a butt-load of money. (And, as I read it, the judge didn’t define marriage, he just said that the federal government couldn’t.)

Transplanted Lawyer
July 8th, 2010 | LINK

It takes two sides to have a culture war, Maggie. You could come to the realization that other people getting married does not affect you in any material way and that a profoundly American virtue is live and let live. Or you could elect to continue prosecuting your side of a culture war that is already underway and not at all started by Judge Tauro.

David C.
July 8th, 2010 | LINK

Care to share with us Bri, just exactly why you hate the US constitution so much? Oh, and here is a little hint: the existence of Activist Judges is, pretty much, a myth.

And no, Maggs, the judge doesn’t want to start another culture war, he wants to (finally) put an end to one.

You two are running out of options, I’d suggest you take my earlier advice and get real jobs real soon now. You might want to start looking immediately, even before you get back from your little road trip.

Eric in Oakland
July 9th, 2010 | LINK

This is the statement that I though was funniest:

“Despite the explicit language in DOMA that the law was designed to protect children’s right to their mothers and fathers, the judge disavowed that DOMA has anything to do with responsible procreation.”

So, because someone wrote that DOMA was designed to protect children it must be true? Is anybody that gullible? And does anyone seriousy believe that preventing legal recognition for some people’s marriages will encourage “responsible procreation”?

Scott P.
July 9th, 2010 | LINK

Another error of La Gallagher is that the federal government outlawed polygamy. It didn’t, it just told the LDS Church that so long as it was allowed by them Utah wouldn’t be allowed into the Union. But why be bothered by the niceties of reality when there is fuming to be done!

Lynn David
July 9th, 2010 | LINK

The simple fact is that the right of the federal government to define marriage for the purposes of its federal law and federal territories has been clear since the late 19th century, when Congress banned polygamy.

Sorry, no. Everyone I’ve ever read concerning that case concerning Utah has said it was an egregious use of federal power concerning both marriage and religion. That the state of Utah should have been the final arbiter of how they should wish to define marriage.

Lynn David
July 9th, 2010 | LINK

Pint of Ben & Jerry’s for Maggie, quick.

More like a fifth of Jack Daniels.

Scott
July 9th, 2010 | LINK

I love how they squawk about federalism and state’s rights, until a judge makes a federalist-leaning ruling that *they* don’t like.

Can’t have it both ways, guys…

scott
July 9th, 2010 | LINK

Oh please, Mags. Encourage someone to go the appellate route – then when the decision is affirmed, it will apply nationally and not just in MA.

F Young
July 9th, 2010 | LINK

@Jordan

“Google Reader inserted an ad for traditionalvalues.us below this post. It asks if I think “homosexuals should have special rights” and invites me to “Take the American Morality Survey.” Fail.”

Actually, it might be a good idea for BTB readers to answer their surveys, to give them some balance! They also ask who should be the next SCOTUS judge if Kagan is rejected. George W. Bush is an option.

Of course, they harvest your name and email. So, you might want to provide a throw-away email.

thad
July 9th, 2010 | LINK

Since Kagan filed the brief defending DOMA would she be required to recuse herself if this case reaches SCOTUS?

DaveM
July 9th, 2010 | LINK

Thad:
SCOTUS is exempt from _mandatory_ recusals. Kagan could still choose to recuse herself, however.

beachewtoy75
July 9th, 2010 | LINK

hehehe… it’s funny ’cause they’re pissed.

Chris McCoy
July 9th, 2010 | LINK

Scott P. said:

Another error of La Gallagher is that the federal government outlawed polygamy. It didn’t, it just told the LDS Church that so long as it was allowed by them Utah wouldn’t be allowed into the Union. But why be bothered by the niceties of reality when there is fuming to be done!

Actually, that’s not true. The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act of 1862 outlawed bigamy (and therefore plural marriage).

The Act was never enforced, but it was still the Law.

The Supreme Court upheld the law in 1890 in Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States.

John Doucette
July 9th, 2010 | LINK

The reason DOMA passed with a large majority is that few in Congress dared to vote against it. Same reason few, if any, dared vote against invading Iraq after 9/11. It was seen as political suicide.

DN
July 9th, 2010 | LINK

Today I feel like the Emperor in Return of the Jedi. “Yes… feed your anger!”

I’m sitting back, drinking in all their delicious hate :)

VapoRob
July 9th, 2010 | LINK

Well of course they are furious, a big fireball from above is about to fall on their heads. Get out your umbrellas.

Scott P.
July 9th, 2010 | LINK

Chris, thank you for the correction. My understanding of the matter came from my eduction in Salt Lake City. It seems the LDS Church has spun the story to make it sound as if the change was made voluntarily.

Priya Lynn
July 9th, 2010 | LINK

A single federal judge in Boston has no moral right to decide the definition of marriage for the people of the United States,” Brown continued.

But he’s not deciding the definition of marriage for anyone. If Brown or anyone else wants to define their marriage as heterosexual they are free to do so – gays must have the same right. It is Brown and his ilk who are trying to define marriage for people other than themselves.

cd
July 9th, 2010 | LINK

IIRC most of the funding for NOM/Maggie comes principally from Mormon and orthodox Catholics sources. Hence “we”.

Paul in Canada
July 9th, 2010 | LINK

Too delicious!

TampaZeke
July 9th, 2010 | LINK

I think this sums up NOM’s position PERFECTLY!

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_t6rV3U9ZEHM/TDc_oLzMllI/AAAAAAAA2Uk/rWwnr21LHI8/s1600/QuitSquirming.jpg

KZ
July 9th, 2010 | LINK

Waaahmbulance! Waaahmbulance!

Erin
July 9th, 2010 | LINK

Chris: I hate to say it, but that law could be argued unconstitutional too, but oh well. I guess it will be another battle for the moral police. (I don’t think polygamy is a comparable arrangement to monogamous gay relationships, just to make that clear. I could rant on and on about my reasons, but I’ll spare anyone who might read this.)
I did notice that all the NOM and Traditional Values Coalition spokespeople who have commented on this case interestingly did not comment on why/how they think the judge’s findings were wrong in terms of the constitutionality of that section of the law. They throw out the same old, “too many people don’t like gay marriage in this country still, and your just an activist judge who had to force this on us” nonsense.
Anyone who passed junior high knows one of a judge’s jobs is to decide if a law is constitutional. Maggie and Brian failed to mention any reason why they think his ruling was incorrect based on the constitution. Even in California before Prop 8, the legal basis was there for the judge to rule gay couples could marry.

Regan DuCasse
July 10th, 2010 | LINK

Since SCOTUS is majority Catholic, I think that’s where MG and BB feel confident of a win in all bans being upheld.

Obviously there doesn’t have to be a RATIONAL basis to uphold it, just motivation to screw gay people over and using the Constitution and SCOTUS to do it.
That OTHER little protection clause about the tyranny of majorities doesn’t seem to be entering this national conversation.
At it should. As well as the final decisions of the SCOTUS on this.

Jason D
July 12th, 2010 | LINK

I just looked up the text of DOMA. It says ZERO about children.

Just to make sure I didn’t miss it it, I word-searched the page for the words “family”, “children”, “child”, “mother”, “father”, and “parent”.

Sorry Mags, swing and ANOTHER miss.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.