Heart of Glass Rhymes With... Gov. Beshear

It's Kentucky's turn to make headlines. Although Arkansas surly would beg to differ. 

I was reading a article on Kentucky Governor, Steve Beshear, and his role in defending Kentucky's ban on gay certain marriages.

In an article in The Courier-Journal by Andrew Wolfson published on May 10th, all is explained on what Kentucky has been up to since losing in District Court:

U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II in February struck down Kentucky's law and constitutional amendment banning the recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states, saying Kentucky had offered no rational basis for treating gay and lesbian couples differently.

Attorney General Jack Conway, whose office had been defending the ban, declined to appeal Heyburn's ruling, saying at the time that he thought the ban was unconstitutional. Beshear's office then hired an Ashland law firm to handle the appeal, which was filed Monday at the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.

Go read the full article. Seriously. I will quiz later on the material.

There is defiantly a lesson to be learned for governors, here. When your AG drops a case like this, perhaps you should likewise.By hiring outside legal representation, you are wasting government money that could be spent on education, improving infrastructure, or hell, even dildos for the poor would be a better use of the money.

If Jack Conway is running as a Democrat for Governor and you lose this case, he looks intelligent, a good leader, and fiscally prudent, while your party looks incompetent.... Wait Beshear's a Democrat... ummm. uhhh.... but... but. at least Conway looks good and smart... and at least now perhaps I will look a little less partisan... shit.

To see what Governor Beshear's odds are of success, I took a look at the Brief they filed with the 6th Circuit Court.

What scares me the most is that the Brief for the Defendant Appellant is very well written. The Brief  is grammatically flowing and avoids choppy sentences and general errors. I obviously disagree with the logic and the jurisprudence presented; however, well written briefs have a tendency of succeeding, particularly when they defend the status quo.

But let's take a look at their argumentation:

Kentucky, like 33 other states, has exercised its broad authority to regulate domestic relations by adopting a traditional man-woman definition of marriage.

That is not a definition of marriage. Marriage is defined by the statutes that promulgate the rights and responsibilities of marriage. States define marriage by whether or not they adopt the Communal Property Regime or if they use Common Law Property. Beyond that you are defining who gets married, and a state needs a damn good reason to do that (literally. Abridging the 14th Amendment requires strict scrutiny.)

So what's Kentucky's damn good reason for not recognizing same-sex marriages:

Even if Baker were not preclusive, Plaintiffs’ equal protection claims fail. Same-sex couples are materially different from traditional man-woman couples. Only man-woman couples can naturally procreate. Fostering procreation serves a legitimate economic interest that is rationally related to the traditional man-woman marriage model. Thus, same-sex couples are not similarly situated to man woman couples, and the distinction drawn by Kentucky’s statutes is rationally related to a legitimate interest of Kentucky.

So economic collapse will ensue if Kentucky.. umm.. huh!? Gay people don't stop gaying it up when denied marriage. Yes, men and women make more men and women, and people see that as being somehow good for society. But straight people will continue popping little people out of their baby cannons, even if the gayz are allowed equal benefits. This doesn't even meet rational basis. 

Furthermore the examples used by Kentucky to demonstrate their hypothesis are Japan and Germany, neither of which allow same-sex marriage. So we can't allow gay certain types of marriages, because there are problems in places where those gay certain types of marriages aren't performed. You do realize that's an argument for gay marriage, right? 

But hold up, what's this about Baker v. Nelson:

Additionally, Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185 (Minn. 1971), appeal dismissed by 409 U.S. 810 (1972), affirmatively rejected the notion that state law same-sex marriage prohibitions violate the Equal Protection Clause. Baker remains valid binding precedent upon the lower federal courts.

When nearly every federal jurisdiction in America is hearing the same type of case, perhaps this isn't the best argument. Baker provides no rational as it simply declined Certiorari. So after Perry, courts could adopt the 10th Circuits ruling as a primary persuasive authority. I explained it more in detail on the write up over Kitchen v. Herbert. Baker was over a statutory ban, while Kentucky has a constitutional ban. Thanks bigots! 

Liam '14

The Reader Quiz

By what day must the Plaintiffs file their response to the appeal?

A. May 30th

B. June 9th

C. July 4th

D.Butt-Sex 

The answer is D. Butt-Sex... good job reading the Courier-Journal article.

Meh.

***Just a quick heads up, the following post is incomplete. In the past I wouldn't post an incomplete writing, and it would sit unpublished forever. So this will be sloppy and unpolished and flawed. ***

I just don't have time to finish or the energy to clean it up. I also am bummed out about Town of Greece and the future out look of the Lemon Test.

***

Recently while speaking at the Pastor for Life Luncheon, Chief Justice for the Supreme Court of Alabama, Roy Moore raised some red flags about his opinions of law.

The video of his speech is supposed to be here, but I can't get it to work due to blogspot hating the world... or it does work, Yay!!!!!



Moore's Comments in three parts.

1. The 1st Amendment applies only to Christians:

Nope. The 1st Amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Notice how it doesn't say Christians. Me too. Now, I might not be some backwater, inbred, shirtless fuck Supreme Court Justice of Alabama, but the phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" seems pretty clear on what type of laws we can make prohibiting the exercise of religion.

Even if the 1st actually stated that only Christians had the benefit of freedom of religion and speech, the 14th amendment would take care of that issue.

Here is the Lemon test as spelled out by the US Supreme Court (the Burger Court no less) in Windmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263, 272 (1981).

A policy will not offend the Establishment Clause if it can pass the following three-pronged test: (1) It has a secular legislative purpose; (2) its principal or primary effect would be neither to advance nor to inhibit religion; and (3) it does not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion." 

2. Without God There Wouldn't be Freedom of Religion, so no Freedom of Religion for Those Who Worship False Gods 

Ugggggggh the stuuuuuuuuppppppppidddd make it stop make it stop. If you take away people's freedom of religion, there's no freedom of religion... stupid stupid stupid. So yes, if there is a god, it's thanks to that particular god that there is freedom of religion and no thanks to Moore.

Ok before I jump to conclusions here is what Moore said:

Buddha didn't create us, Mohammed didn't create us. It’s the God of the Holy Scriptures.

They didn't bring the Koran over on the pilgrim ship, Mayflower. Let’s get real, let’s go back and learn our history. Let’s stop playing games.

No One, No One claims that Buddha or Mohammed created the universe. If you're going to be an asshat at least get your facts straight.

Secondly as discussed by countless legal scholars, religions benefit from the establishment clause. In Weiss v. District Board, 76 Wis. 177 (1890) Catholics sued the state of Wisconsin, because they were being discriminated against when their children were forced to read out of the wrong Bible. Or a Unitarian in Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) who was upset that their school time was being wasted.

When it comes to religion in the law, there is always an asshole who will push for further religious purity. The principles enshrined in the 1st Amendment and regulated by the Lemon Test help shield religious people from bigoted assholes who want to force their interpretations of religion on others.


3. Life Begins at Conception.

Finally Moore stated:

That's in Blackstone's commentaries. As soon as the infant stirs in its mother's womb, they didn't have the technology we have to day. But they knew that when it kick it was alive. Today our courts say it's not alive until the head comes out. If technology’s supposed to increase our knowledge, how did we become so stupid?

He goes on to state life begins at conception.

Where to begin...since he called people stupid, I think I'll start there.

Open a fucking text book; life does not "begyen" at conception. Life begins prior to conception with the production of millions of haploid gametes. Men produce living cells know sperm cells containing one half of a man's genomic sequence, which takes about 130 days to form. Women produce eggs or ovum before she is even born. Then one night when they are teenagers, and they've had too many wine-cooler, the man's penis becomes engulfed with blood, and they knock boots until the male is forced to apologies and say "well, that's never happened to me before, I'll call you tomorrow." And then he doesn't... Asshole.

It's kind of fucking embarrassing that a gay has to explain this to fully grown man. But the important thing to take away is that if you want to play the science game, make sure you understand the science involved.

Perhaps this video can shed some light on this issue.



Furthermore, courts don't claim that life begins at birth. If anything they are ruling on rights. In this country a human being does not have a full set of right until they reach adulthood. And for good reason. We don't want children to be treated as adults.

It's also funny that he would mention Blackstone and life in one breath.  Blackstone's ratio states:

All presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously; for the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer.

How will he rule in an upcoming Death Penalty case. A new stet of statistics came out over the weekend from Gross at the University of Michigan, which shows that at least 4 percent of people that have been sentence to death have been vindicated.

We do not know how many people have been falsely executed.

But Blackstone didn't say executed, he said suffer.

Liam '14

Joy Division

Bad news. Vernita Gray died on Tuesday March 18, 2014 in her home in Chicago after succumbing to cancer. Ms. Gray made national headlines late last November when she married Pat Ewert becoming the first couple to get gay married in Illinois, even though marriage equality was to be promulgated on June 1, 2014.

In an article by Carla K. Johnson for ABC News, the circumstances are explained:

Gray's failing health and her wish to marry persuaded a federal judge to order that an expedited marriage license be granted to the couple ahead of the June 1 effective date of the state's gay marriage law. A subsequent judge's ruling then paved the way for more same-sex couples to marry early in some Illinois counties.

Gray worked for gay rights for decades, advocating for same-sex marriage long before many other activists saw it as a possibility, Bennett said. To win over conservatives, she made the case that her Social Security survivor benefits should go to her partner, and her knack for working with people across the political spectrum "made everyone feel that they had a unique contribution to move us forward," Bennett said.

A former restaurant owner, Gray worked for the Cook County state's attorney's office for 18 years, assisting crime victims and witnesses. 

Please, please read the rest of the article.

An important piece to the marriage debate that never seems to be answered is "What is marriage?" A few miles north of Chicago, the State of Wisconsin defines it through Wis. Stat. § 765.01.:

Marriage, so far as its validity at law is concerned, is a civil contract, to which the consent of the parties capable in law of contracting is essential, and which creates the legal status of husband and wife.

Marriage is a contract.

Like all contracts, the purpose of marriage is to end disputes. When two people cannot agree about anything else (the sky is blue; NO it’s azure!) they must agree to predetermined terms and conditions as prescribed by state statute.

When life is going well, there is no real need for marriage. It doesn’t take the state to determine who takes the trash out on Tuesday or who cooks dinner on Wednesday. It’s not a document that means forever and ever puppy dog love. If you want one of those, go buy a box of crayons and doodle on a piece of printer paper, then send it off to your preferred spiritual leader to blow smoke up your ass, since that’s not marriage.

Marriage is a contract. A contract to settle disputes over property and responsibilities.

Anyone dumb enough to say the state should be removed from the marriage business should wrap their dick in tinfoil and stick it in an electric outlet. The government is the arbiter of contracts; therefore it is necessarily needed to be involved in contracts. And as polygamy is not legal in the United States (nor is there a structural basis for it), it is necessary to have marriage license to verify the marriage as being valid.

Marriage is what happens to the house when one spouse dies. Wis. Stat. § 766.605.:

A homestead acquired after the determination date which, when acquired, is held exclusively between spouses with no 3rd party is survivorship marital property if no intent to the contrary is expressed on the instrument of transfer or in a marital property agreement. A homestead may be reclassified under s. 766.31 (10).

Marriage is what happens when the husband kidnaps the children and flees across state lines. Wis. Stat. § 767.105(3)(a).:

Except as provided in par. (b), a party who violates any provision of sub. (1) may be proceeded against under ch. 785 for contempt of court.

Marriage is what happens when a wife’s sole proprietorship collapses into debt. Wis. Stat. § 766.55.:

(1)   An obligation incurred by a spouse during marriage, including one attributable to an act or omission during marriage, is presumed to be incurred in the interest of the marriage or the family. A statement separately signed by the obligated or incurring spouse at or before the time the obligation is incurred stating that the obligation is or will be incurred in the interest of the marriage or the family is conclusive evidence that the obligation to which the statement refers is an obligation in the interest of the marriage or family, except that the existence of that statement does not affect any interspousal right or remedy.

(2)(a) An obligation incurred by a spouse in the interest of the marriage or the family may be satisfied only from all marital property and all other property of the incurring spouse.

Taking the state out of marriage removes widows out of deceased spouses’ homes. It makes dividing property in divorce even more unbearable. It takes away a creditors ability to collect on debts.

Gays will get sick. I myself will die one day. Being a misanthrope I don’t give a shit what happens to my possessions, but I respect others to make up their minds. Gays go bankrupt. Gays get divorced and need to divide shared property.

Gays need marriage. Now.

Liam ‘14

Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Rachel Maddow

For months I have been following the Court Room Epic known as Dean v. Maddow  (Dean v. NBC Universal would be its hypothetical case name), where Axel Rose (not really) gains 50 pounds and goes on homophobic tirades and then sues Rachel Maddow for quoting him. I have read all the available documents from the original Complaint issued by Bradlee Dean, to the Special Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to DC Anti-SLAPP Act, and now the Certification for Recusal or Disqualification of Judge.

I read the other day that the Judge in the case had docketed a judgment in favor of NBC Universal, awarding them attorneys fees. Subsequently the Plaintiffs are now quixotically pursuing a recusal. So in their honor I have gone through the main documents in the case to explain and critic them.  Hopefully the case will make a little bit more sense now.


The Complaint:

Don't Put in a Dollar Amount.

In many jurisdiction putting in an actual dollar amount in a complaint is unprofessional. Secondly 50 Million Dollars is ridiculous and makes you seem without creditability. If you are suing for 50 Million dollars, that is saying, Maddow ruined your reputation to the point where you expected to earn 1 Million dollars per year for the next 50 years. Dean is not Axel Rose so... yeah...

Side Bar Time

If you are suing someone for defamation, you should be mindful of the elements of a Tort. DBCD.  If you are claiming damages to your reputation and business, then making headlines (especially if it's the La Crosse Tribune):

DUNKERTON, Iowa — Administrators, teachers and students did not get what they expected Thursday during an extended school program.

Everyone anticipated the message from Junkyard Prophet, a traveling band based in Minnesota, to be about bullying and making good choices. Instead, junior and senior high students at Dunkerton High School and faculty members said they were assaulted by the group's extreme opinions on homosexuality and images of aborted fetuses.

"They told my daughter, the girls, that they were going to have mud on their wedding dresses if they weren't virgins," said Jennifer Littlefield, a parent upset with the band's performance..

... Littlefield also did not appreciate what she described as gay bashing.

"They told these kids that anyone who was gay was going to die at the age of 42," she said. "It just blows me away that no one stopped this."

Don't be in the news showing that the Maddow segment didn't affect your career. If you are still getting hired to preform at high schools, it is counter to your argument that you're damaged goods. Worse, if you are the one destroying your own reputation that undercuts the claim that Maddow is the causation. Worst, by saying sufficiently similar things to the alleged defamation, it shows the defamatory statements to be true, which is a defense against defamation.

Reduce the Pages

There are approximately 6 unnecessary pages out of 10. This is a court proceeding not the Newsroom at Fox. Slamming Maddow for being a gay leftist secular atheist will only anger the court because it has nothing to do with the case or the law.

State a Claim

Really why are you suing. If you can't state it in clear, concise words, then perhaps you shouldn't be suing.  Not everything requires a lawsuit.

Proof Read

Yes, hire a high school student if you need to. I'm dyslexic, and I would never, never submit anything without having 2 to 3 pair of eyes reading it, well except this blog because I'm lazy and cheap. Sentences like this should be edited "He is on information and belief a gay activist."  Once again I write a blog, I submit articles that I have proofread. They have spelling errors. If I were before a court I would pay someone to read it over. And get a style guide to learn how to comma properly. I suggest Eats, Shoots & Leaves.


The Special Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to DC Anti-SLAPP Act:

 Like her or hate her, Maddow has great lawyers. Really this motion is pure poetry. Well articulated, coherent and well reasoned. It is never abusive, but release on the law to make legal arguments.It is 51 pages, but if you ever get a chance to read the ant-slapp do it.  This is how a legal document should read.


The Recusal:


Good Faith vs. Bad Faith.

Because you are a Christian does not mean that you always have good faith. For example, if you move to dismiss your own action to bring the case to Federal Court to avoid Anti-SLAPP laws that is known as forum shopping. Forum Shopping is the antithesis of Good Faith. This motion clearly admits Forum Shopping, so it is doubly embarrassing.

While on the subject of good faith, NBC Universal could easily have filed a Motion for a change of venue. By getting a different venue Larry Klayman couldn't represent Dean, and let's face it DC is awkward in this case as Dean is primarily from Minnesota, Maddow Broadcasts from New York, and  NBC Universal is also out of New York.

It takes an Idiot...

When you are trying to get relief from judgment on the basis that the judge was prejudice it would behoove a litigant to do anything but call the judge a "woman scorned." It makes you seem like a jackass. Really why would you write that, all it can do is show that you were being unreasonable. Seriously, fuck, that's stupid.

!ekorts regna na dah tsuj I !ti nmaD

Ok. I'm better. When you are trying to claim prejudice, you yourself do not want to seem in the least bit prejudice. This is kindergarten shit.

It's a (Gay) Trap!

This is not Fox News. The Gay conspiracy doesn't exist. So stop it. It only hurts your argument as you seem unreasonable.


In the end it's real simple, the judge was in her right to order Attorneys' Fees. If you bring a suit forward only to drop it right before commencement you are wasting people's time and money.  What the Judge ordered was fair and reasonable. She could have gone a mile further and order deeper sanctions for wasting not only the defendants' money and time, but also the courts. She may also have been able to sanction Klayman (DC Bar Rule 3.2). This complaint is obviously frivolous because the plaintiff could barely state a claim. Dropping the case seconds before trial to pursue the same lousy case in a different court is a waste of time and money. Money the defendants should not pay.

All in all I am a little comfuzeded by this whole case.  I thought both Klayman and Dean were small government conservatives. So why do they need the Government to solve their problems? And why are they now seeking help from the largest, most gay loving intrusive level of government?

Homersexual Agenda

The Homosexual Agenda a brief history.

In the landmark case Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), Antonin Scalia wrote:

Today’s opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.

The problem with relying solely on group morality in a constitutional democracy to dictate the laws is that the constitution often interferes with the group morality. When we have penumbras such as privacy and the equal protection clause discrimination based on morality will be . Another way to put it is that our morals are eclipsed by our laws. The large distinction between morality and law is the concept of harm. Many things that are immoral are harmful: murder, theft, breaking-people's-legs. Other things are "immoral" but are not harmful and not illegal: eating bacon, sloppy gay sex, being a douche, etc. There is also another category of harmful but not immoral: jaywalking, speeding, being too awesome.

So obviously there are somethings that are harmful and immoral and those definitively should be against the law. But it is sloppy to say that because something is immoral that it is also illegal. And for good reason. Who's morality are we going to use? And what principles are behind that chosen morality?

The legal approach has its goods and its bads; however, the concept of harm as the basis of all laws is rather non-arbitrary, when compared to morality.

The moral approach is highly arbitrary particularly among religious zealots and literalists. They probably claim that they are the ones who definitely are not arbitrary since they follow every word of the bible, rationality be damned. But that is the problem, what rational reason is there for something to be illegal or immoral without harm. In the bible it often justifies morality by saying it displeases God. Eating cilantro displeases me; however, I don't consider it to be a sin nor think it should be illegal.

Here are somethings that the bible says are immoral:

Shellfish
Pork
Peeing while standing up (seriously 1 Samuel 25:22)
Gay Sex
Wearing Boyfriend-Jeans
Girls wearing pants
Men wearing skirts (Sorry Scotland)
Adultery (Punishable by Stoning)
Sex for Pleasure
Hair cuts
Palm reading
Leather
Polyester
Mixed Fabrics
Having Acne
Not Washing your Shower
Tattoos
Worshiping the wrong god (funny how that's every religion)
Saying Abracadabra
Forgetting the Incense
Simply wanting new things

Arguing with your parents (death penalty)
Wear gold
Shaving
Marring Foreigners
Doing anything on Sunday (goodbye football) 

And here are somethings the bible conveniently forgets:


Slavery
War
Homelessness
Illiteracy
Outsourcing
Tax Evasion (well Jesus said not to evade them)
Land Annexation
Burning of Fossil Fuels
Genocide
Over Population
Pre E-ZPass Toll Booths (evilest of all things)



So why is homosexuality immoral to some, and what is this Scalia-called homosexual agenda?

Morality is arbitrary and often based on religious text or philosophical work based on religious tenants. (As Nietzsche would say in today's parlance "suck it Marx.") Some people guess that religious texts are ancient survival guides and nation building manuals. So in that context perhaps then there was some rationality, but it no longer is applicable.

The homosexual agenda is not some scary menace. There is no conspiracy to convert teens into gays. There is a legal defense fund called Lambda Legal, the Human Rights Campaign, and organizations like the SPLC.

These organizations promote issues that actually matter in the lives of gay people and have little impact on the rest of Americans.

The Real Homosexual Agenda's Issues:

1. The right to marry whomever a person chooses.
2. The right to stick it in any consenting hole.
3. The right to continue Health Insurance in cases of HIV.
4. To be protected from acts of physical violence and destruction of property.

Wie schrecklich! It is so menacing to want to marry a person and have legal rights, or to not be arrested for having consenting sex in your own house (or blackmailed for it), or not lose your health insurance from catching a communicable disease, or to ask the police to actually investigate and catch criminals.


Anyway, I was trying to think of how a hick would say homosexual, and I came up with the word homersexual. And then I thought of a gay Homer Simpson, so this is today's disturbing photoshop:

Liam '12

Freedom Just For Me

I think America's Scared to have a Man-Date

Holy shit. Lawrence O'Donnell was really right about something. Based on his background, it should come as no surprise that Lawrence does actually seem to be fairly competent with the USC. Perhaps I simply missed the conversation about what the individual mandate actually is, but when I finally looked it up to verify, I was shocked.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

There is no such thing as the individual mandate. Wow. Lawrence is absolutely correct.

According to 26 USC § 5000A(g)(2)(A):

(A) Waiver of criminal penalties

In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.

Under this section of the IRS code, you cannot be thrown in jail for not having health insurance. It is that simple. Well simple is not the right word as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is 906 pages long, and even by legal standards is fairly complex. But not going to jail over failure to pay the mandate tax, maybe someone in the Obama Administration should have explained this point, repeatedly.

26 USC § 5000A(g)(2)(B)(i)-(ii):

(B) Limitations on liens and levies

The Secretary shall not—

(i) file notice of lien with respect to any property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this section, or

(ii) levy on any such property with respect to such failure.

The IRS cannot file a lien or place a levy on a person for failing to pay the penalty created by the individual mandate.  So if Person A doesn't have health insurance, they will be slapped with an approximate $100 tax (fine); however the government cannot put Person A in jail, secure a lien, or place a levy.  Essentially as the law is written, there is no way for the government to get the money.  Therefore, if the individual mandate is the only section of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to be struck down, it would seem consequence free for the Obama Administration. Yes that's right, the mean over-intrusive federal government is going to force you to have health insurance by doing nothing to force you to have health insurance.

Ass-hats.

I think the Obama Administration should  find an attorney and a cartoonist and have them come up with simple explanations for controversial laws, instead of having people just tune into Fox News where they hear stupid shit like death panels.

Liam '12

Freedom Just For Me

Nature is not so Natural

UPDATE: I found the full video, and to be fair the section of youtube was taken out of context. I'm not going to take down this post because I have heard many of the same arguments made by other people.   So I guess just pretend that Mr. Barber didn't say these things.
 
I stumbled upon this video, and it quickly became apparent that I need to comment on this idiocy. The video was uploaded to Youtube via Right Wing Watch. I found the transcript on Right Wing Watch's site.Not like this isn't a daily occurrence, we get to see Matt Barber make an ass of himself, Liberty Counsel, and thus ""Liberty" "University""(oh wait it actually is ABA accredited).

 

This tyranny of rights, this tyranny of the minority, and we’re not talking about racial minorities, neutral minorities, we’re talking about people who define their identity based upon sexually deviant behaviors and proclivities.This is a tyranny of sexually deviant rights and it’s by design to replace the enumerated Constitutional rights given by our Creator based upon the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God, these so-called rights violate the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God, and yes violate the expressed guarantees that we have to religious liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of association granted to us by the United States Constitution. The LGBT agenda and Constitutional rights cannot exist in harmony. At Liberty Counsel, we defend the Constitution.

Let's deconstruct his argument chunk by chunk.

This tyranny of rights, this tyranny of the minority, and we’re not talking about racial minorities, neutral minorities, we’re talking about people who define their identity based upon sexually deviant behaviors and proclivities.

A tyranny of right, that sounds like a tyranny of freedom, which makes perfect sense. I have to give him credit, if you say something that is dumb enough it's like brain Novocaine, that way you won't notice the hate so much.Then he moves to how the act of gay sex is the only thing that identifies us.  It's never the love two people share, the emotional connections, the friendship, the stories, or the day-in-day-out same as strait people lives, it is always about the sloppy butt sex.  Yep for me it is.  I couldn't go to work because I was getting ass-fucked.  I couldn't get the mail because I was getting ass-fucked. Guess why I couldn't walk the dog. I digress.

This is a tyranny of sexually deviant rights and it’s by design to replace the enumerated Constitutional rights given by our Creator based upon the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God, these so-called rights violate the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God, and yes violate the expressed guarantees that we have to religious liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of association granted to us by the United States Constitution. 

Once again a tyranny of rights.. Is this fucker trying to piss me off, or is does he seriously confuse liberty and oppression. I could live with one of those. Then he says it will replace the enumerated rights, what enumerated right will disappear? Well, tell me jackass. Which one goes bye-bye? That's what I thought.Next he says god wrote our original constitution. Great job on that slavery things asshole. And if you're omnipotent and omniscient why did you allow for amendments..

Ooh here he say's the constitution is predicated upon Laws of Nature and of Nature's God.  Yes because there are no such things a gay animals. Nope no such things as gay penguins.  I means seriously has he never been to the monkey section of the zoo. Chimpanzees are always "playing" with each other. Bonobo constantly giving out gay hand-jobs (well technically they are bi hand-jobs.) And just a side note when I end up in hell, I hope it's penguin hell.  He then says being gay violates these Law's of nature and thus the constitution res ipsa loquitur.

Let's look at the constitutional rights he list again:

Religious Liberty: Yes and which God hates the gays. If my God happens to think we all should be gay. Or more likely what if I am Buddhist, Hindu, Reform Jewish, or a Congregationalist.


Freedom of speech: Meh off the top of my head I have nothing clever for this one.

Freedom of association: Dear lord he's an idiot. First off, freedom of association is not a word for word constitutional right.  It is known as a penumbra. A good definition of penumbra come from Lawyers.com, "a body of rights held to be guaranteed by implication from other rights explicitly enumerated in the U.S. Constitution."  Similar to privacy which was granted Griswold v. Connecticut. if the courts start eating away at the penumbras so goes free association.

Second what can be more of a freedom of association issue than choosing who you want to hang out with, date, love, have sex with,  live with, and eventually marry. Those are what the Gay Rights are all about.

The LGBT agenda and Constitutional rights cannot exist in harmony. At Liberty Counsel, we defend the Constitution.

Yes of course rights of the people cannot exist with the Constitution. And didn't Jesus say to be a Fish of Men.

Liam '12

Freedom Just For Me