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

Wackadoodle files amicus brief in Perry v. Schwarzenegger appeal

Timothy Kincaid

September 20th, 2010

High level cases bring out the crazies. And their attorneys. And so today Margie Reilly and her attorney James Joseph Lynch have weighed in on Perry v. Schwarzenegger.

Margie’s qualifications are stellar. In addition to being a part-time substitute pre-school teacher,

Margie has attended an eight week course given by the Diocese of Sacramento on “Theology of the Body”. The course is preparation for teaching about marriage, family, sexuality and creation. In the midst of the dramatic clash between competing ideas that we face today, men’s and women’s call to life-giving communion in marriage is the center of a great struggle: It is a struggle for securing the well-being of our children, between the forces of life and death, between love and hatred. It is her wish to join the struggle on the side of marriage as defined between a man and a woman, life, and family which are worth embracing for the preservation of our society.

And as for James Joseph, well his curriculum vitae suggests a somewhat less than successful lawyer. Mostly he seems to just act as an anti-gay, anti-abortion activist who fills his empty hours with drafting amicus briefs with brilliant legal argument such as:

Whether to have sex with the same sex, where propagation is not possible, or to have sex with the opposite sex, where propagation of the family is possible, is not unalterable; it is a choice of the individual, thus not a fundamental right. In fact, current thinking from various sources suggests that there are “breeders” and “non-breeders”. Biologically speaking, procreation occurs between heterosexuals in an act of begetting or generating, whereas mere fornication by non-breeders is incapable of producing offspring. And that difference is substantive. The constitution does not require things which are different in fact or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same. Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Ry. v. Browning (1940) 310 U.S. 362; Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942) 316 U.S. 535, 545.

It is obvious as a factual matter the two classes are different, one to breed, the other not to breed, and it is common knowledge that the general opinion is that they are different relationships.

Well, there ya have it. Marriage is reserved for breeders.

(please, oh please, no one tell James Joseph Lynch that “breeders” is actually a derogatory slang term)



September 20th, 2010 | LINK

Not only is it horrendously wrong in so many ways – where are all the kids of gay people coming from if we can’t breed? – but it is also solidly self-defeating.

Getting the courts to recognize LGBT people as a distinct class – whether called “gay” or “homosexual” or “non-breeder” – essentially guarantees the strict scrutiny that subsequently requires full marriage equality.

But seriously, gay people are quite fertile, thanks – we just can’t have kids with each other. It doesn’t mean we can’t conceive kids with someone else.

Just like straight people.

September 20th, 2010 | LINK

Can’t wait to see this one laughed out of court. The court should further fine Mr. Joseph for frivolously wasting the court’s time (see: Taitz, Orly et al).

Love how the most recent case he sites is from 1942. Nothing’s changed since then, has it?

Rob San Diego
September 21st, 2010 | LINK

Though I have no idea what they were trying to say in their briefs, I must admit that I use the word breeders to put people down.

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, never shared)

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