Home > ethics, gay lobby, Judicial Activism, Politics & Marriage, Same Sex Marriage > So Now It’s Going To Be Collusive Litigation, Is It?

So Now It’s Going To Be Collusive Litigation, Is It?

February 15th, 2011

Do the words “official duty” mean anything to guys like Barack Obama or Jerry Brown? How about “oath of office”?

But at least we can be certain they know about “collusive litigation”?:

…the Obama Justice Department’s defense of DOMA maintains a pattern that a distinguished scholar has termed “almost like collusive litigation”—that is, where presumed adversaries are actually seeking the same result. The Obama Administration is indeed all but abandoning DOMA—but not in the forthright manner that would result in a real battle in the courts where both sides of the controversy are represented.

One conscientious legislator in California is actually trying to do something about the situation:

State Senator Tom Harman of California’s 35th Senate District introduced Senate Bill 5. The bill officially titled “Attorney General: Defense of Initiative Statutes,” would require the Attorney General to defend against constitutional challenge, at the trial court level or as a respondent or appellant at the court of appeal or the Supreme Court, a constitutional amendment or an initiative statute that has been approved by the voters.

Moreover, SB 5 would authorize the proponents of the constitutional amendment or initiative statute, to defend the amendment or statute in the place of the Attorney General, if he or she is disqualified.

We can always hope someone in the U.S. Congress will take a cue from State Senator Harman, I guess…

You know, for more than forty years now I’ve watched the homosexual agenda being advanced by people who have no qualms whatsoever about employing absolutely any tactic at all to achieve the ends they desire. (commandeer public schools to sexually indoctrinate children… legislate from the bench… engage in gestapo tactics to intimidate their opponents during elections… undermine the Free Exercise clause… engineer collusive litigation… you name it!) Our fellow citizens in the gay lobby would be well advised to be careful about the legal precedents they are setting that could come back to haunt them.

Consider the implications of this dialog from “A Man For All Seasons”:

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!

The pendulum always swings, my friends, and the worm always turns. Sooner or later, the methods that some of you are using to force your will on all of society will come back to bite you…

Print Friendly
Be Sociable, Share!
  1. Amy
    February 16th, 2011 at 08:17 | #1

    “for more than forty years now I’ve watched the homosexual agenda being advanced by people who have no qualms whatsoever about employing absolutely any tactic at all to achieve the ends they desire.”

    Such are the tactics of despots, dictators, and those who purport that “everyone is equal, but some are MORE equal than others.”

  2. Alex
    February 16th, 2011 at 11:21 | #2

    Given that we of the “homosexual lobby” have faced laws that cast a blanket of criminality over us all, that subject us to arrest, prosecution, fines and imprisonment, and given that we have faced in the recent past laws that ban us from certain occupations, that prevent us from seeking the most basic workplace and housing protections, and given that we have been the victims of harassment, humiliation, and violence from “pro-family” “heroes” like you, I think we’re well aware of what it means for society to force its cruel, discriminatory will on us, thank you very much.

  3. Leland
    February 17th, 2011 at 11:18 | #3

    @Alex
    Do you have a point, Alex? Or are you just reproaching me for daring to express an opinion you disagree with?

  4. Sean
    February 17th, 2011 at 11:25 | #4

    What laws do you refer to Alex that banned you from certain occupations? Pro-family groups do not commit violence and harassment and humiliation (although this is a very subjective term). Therefore, you’re lying. When you try to play the victim you shouldn’t expose yourself to lies, people will find it out. Marriage is by nature discriminatory, but no one is telling you that you can’t find a woman and marry her as that is what marriage is all about (one man and one woman). Another thing, why do you people call yourself gay? Anything I’ve seen you don’t seem happy at all, just angry and vengeful.

  5. Alex
    February 17th, 2011 at 12:44 | #5

    My point, Leland, is that you and the anti-gay crusade have absolutely no right to complain about having other people “force their will” on you. You and anti-gay people like you have been attempting to force decent, hardworking Americans who happen to be gay, to live hidden and stigmatized lives. How do I mean? Well, take for example the fact that until 2003, it was legal in some states for the police to arrest gays simply for being intimate in the privacy of their own home. The Supreme Court’s striking down of those barbaric, intrusive, and demeaning laws was met with fierce opposition from the religious right, precisely because you want to force the entire country, gays and straights, to play by your rules (i.e. your interpretation of Biblical law). While the fight over gay rights now centers on marriage, such as the battle over Proposition 8, only a few decades ago, the battle centered on the right of qualified gay people to serve as schoolteachers. Proposition 6 in California, championed by anti-gay activists, would have banned all gays from teaching in public schools. The reasoning for that despicable proposition was the same as for Prop 8: gay people are a threat to children and ought not be allowed to participate openly in society like everyone else. Thankfully, that bigoted and senseless proposition was voted down, largely because a certain future president (Ronald Reagan!) spoke out against it. Isn’t it funny, Leland and Sean? Not even the “father of contemporary conservatism” was willing to be as viciously anti-gay 30 years ago, when it was totally in fashion, as you are today, when it’s not as acceptable. Leland, if you want a crash course on legislation and agitation against gays by religious conservatives in the past half-century, I’d be happy to give you one. I think, however, that you’re perfectly aware of the lies that have been perpetrated against us by the religious right: that we’re evil, mentally ill, that we molest children, that we “recruit” children to “become” gay, that we don’t deserve to be protected from discrimination in the workplace, that we are incapable of forming real relationships, etc, etc. You’re aware, but you’d rather pretend that you–who can get married, hold hands publicly with your wife without fear of verbal or physical assault, not worry about workplace discrimination–are the “victim.” What a transparent game you and this entire organization are playing.

  6. Leland
    February 17th, 2011 at 15:52 | #6

    @Alex

    …until 2003, it was legal in some states for the police to arrest gays simply for being intimate in the privacy of their own home.

    But when was the last time that actually happened?

    …only a few decades ago…

    The operative phrase of your entire rant, if you ask me…

    Proposition 6 in California … would have banned all gays from teaching in public schools … that bigoted and senseless proposition was voted down, largely because a certain future president (Ronald Reagan!) spoke out against it.

    Oh, so everyone – even conservatives – helped vote that one down? (What brutal persecution!)

    And how long ago was that?

    30 years ago

    Oh yeah.

    Alex, I want to be honest with you. I still think the morality (or lack thereof) of people’s behavior should be an issue. But I have never thought anyone should be discriminated against on the basis of who they are.

    But I think I am beginning to see what your point is: You are so very offended by the kind of persecution you’ve described that you would be delighted to see anyone who disagrees with you marginalized in that way.

    Am I right?

  7. Mark
    February 17th, 2011 at 16:20 | #7

    @Leland
    “But when was the last time that actually happened?”

    It happened in Texas on September 17, 1998, only a little over 10 years. Man, when will you read history???

  8. Alex
    February 17th, 2011 at 17:20 | #8

    Playing the “…but that was a long time ago” card only works if a) it was actually a long time ago, and b) you actually think what happened in that period was wrong. It wasn’t a long time ago, and the fact that most gays weren’t arrested isn’t the point. Criminalization is a way to demean and humiliate and frighten an entire class of people, and that is repugnant and un-democratic. It’s one thing for someone who sincerely is horrified by such measures (e.g. criminalization, teacher bans, brutal social stigma and demonization of openly gay people) to say that they themselves shouldn’t be subjected to marginalization for their belief that same-sex marriage should remain illegal. It’s quite another thing for someone who displays such clear contempt for gay people in all sorts of ways to then turn around and cry when the people he displays contempt for in turn display contempt for him. Don’t expect to be treated civilly by me or any other gay person if you’re going to claim that we’re disgusting, evil perverts who don’t deserve to be allowed to live our lives discrimination-free. Somehow I’m pretty confident that if you were calling the shots fifty or thirty or twenty years ago, gays wouldn’t be allowed to teach in schools, still would be subject to criminal sanctions, still would be viewed as diseased evildoers, and still would be afraid to be honest about their sexual orientation for fear of their livelihoods, their social connections, and God forbid even their safety. So you really have no right to demand respect from people for whom you so clearly have none.

  9. Chairm
    February 20th, 2011 at 10:49 | #9

    Alex, on what principled basis is sexual behavior a matter for public policy or for legal measures?

    You said: “Criminalization is a way to demean and humiliate and frighten an entire class of people, and that is repugnant and un-democratic.”

    What class of people are you referring to?

    If the behavior is repugnant, then, it would be legitimate to stand against it, surely. There are people who experience genetic sexual attraction (sexual attraction between relatives); they are born related and experience the attraction deeply. Neither public policy nor the law, as it currently stands, is neutral on what society considers to be repugnant behavior even though there is no criminalization for being related, for feeling sexual urges, for expressing that in ways other than behavior.

    Society would be justified in going further when it comes to those who feel they were born with a predisposition toward other objects of sexual urges.

    What do you think makes same-sex sexual attraction of such societal significance that it merits your remarks you made in this discussion?

  10. Alex
    February 20th, 2011 at 22:09 | #10

    Chairm,
    First of all, I would like to begin by saying that you really ought to look at the very simple reasoning behind the decision of the APA, AMA, and every other reputable medical, psychological, social scientific, and psychiatric organization to remove homosexuality from the category of “disease” or “mental illness” or “problem.” The reasoning is that attraction, intimacy, and relationship-forming between unrelated, adult, consenting members of the same sex is neither intrinsically oriented, nor abnormally likely, to harm any individual by depriving him/her of autonomy and freedom, or interfering with an individual’s ability to sustain healthy family relationships. Forms of sexual activity such as incest (heterosexual or homosexual) do in fact have those negative consequences–they destroy the family dynamic that is known to be necessary for personal wellbeing, they wreak havoc and confusion for other members of the family, and, perhaps most alarmingly, they often involve circumstances where consent is ambiguous at best. Since family relationships often assume the form of a hierarchy (e.g. parent/child, older sibling/younger sibling), how can we talk about, Heaven forbid, a child giving his/her “consent” to the parent who raised and in many ways controls him/her? There are real, substantive reasons to believe that incest is a damaging, unhealthy thing. No such reasons exist to indicate that two freely consenting members of the same sex are doing any harm, to themselves or anyone else, by engaging in intimacy or forming a relationship. On the contrary, there is an un-ignorable mound of evidence–both scientific and testimonial–of the fact that gay individuals reap the same benefits from intimacy that straight individuals do. I am one of many gay individuals who is happily in a relationship that brings myself, my boyfriend, and our families joy and strength, and harms no one. You, Chairm, have a right to hold our relationship in contempt and believe it is disgusting. You have the right to disapprove of my relationship, your neighbor’s religious practices, your colleague’s political views, your cousin’s left-handedness, or your friend’s floral arrangements. Absent any evidence of harm to anyone, however, you have NO RIGHT to infringe upon my–or anyone else’s–liberty and inalienable right to pursue happiness. If you would prefer to live in a society where your cruel, senseless prejudices can be given free rein, I suggest you move to the Islamic Republic of Iran. I hear they do public hangings of gay people. Very biblical. Or maybe found your own “Christian Republic of Antarctica,” or “Halachic State of Mars.” There you can treat people you don’t like however you please. But in this country, we are governed by reasonable and limited laws that serve to protect individual rights and individual thriving–not destroy them.

  11. Alex
    February 21st, 2011 at 07:48 | #11

    I just would like to thank the moderators of this forum for deleting my measured, earnest, and entirely within-the-bounds response to Chairm. It’s good to see that the “pro-family” folks at the Ruth Institute really value a vibrant debate like they say they do.

  12. Heidi
    February 21st, 2011 at 08:03 | #12

    Alex, good posts. You are absolutely right.

  13. Betsy
    February 21st, 2011 at 09:46 | #13

    @Alex
    It’s right above you. It just hadn’t been moderated yet.

  14. Ruth
    February 21st, 2011 at 14:58 | #14

    @Alex
    “they wreak havoc and confusion for other members of the family, and, perhaps most alarmingly, they often involve circumstances where consent is ambiguous at best.”
    How about a child who is dependent on two parents of the same sex?
    Do you acknowledge their loss?
    Are they asked for their consent?
    Would they be free to give their consent of the loss of either a Mommy or a Daddy, if asked?

  15. Ruth
    February 21st, 2011 at 15:04 | #15

    @Alex
    “you have NO RIGHT to infringe upon my–or anyone else’s–liberty and inalienable right to pursue happiness.”

    Please reconsider the meaning of the phrase “the pursuit of happiness”.
    It very obviously does not mean “whatever anyone wants to do, believing that it will make them ‘happy’ .”

    “Or maybe found your own “Christian Republic of Antarctica,” or “Halachic State of Mars.”

    We already moved somewhere in order to practice our religion. It is called “America”.

  16. Alex
    February 21st, 2011 at 16:51 | #16

    First of all, Ruth, there are several issues at play here: 1) whether gay people should be allowed to live in romantic relationships freely and without fear of the kind of persecution that Chairm (and Leland and Orson Scott Card and Robbie George, etc etc) openly support, 2) whether those gay relationships should have legal recognition, and 3) whether gay people should be allowed to adopt/artificially conceive children. You haven’t really addressed the first two, except in the most vague and unsubstantiated way by suggesting that “telling gay people how they can and can’t live their lives” is somehow a legitimate right included in the concept of “freedom of religion.” Sorry, your right to practice your religion doesn’t include the right to force me or anybody else to live by your personal religious precepts. As to issue #3: the rearing of children by gay couples. I have a few things to say. First, I hope you’re aware that no child has the ability to consent to be raised in the home they happen to be raised into. Sometimes, and all too often, kids are stuck with married, heterosexual parents who neglect or even abuse them. Sometimes, children are raised by single women who date/cohabit with/end up marrying a boyfriend who is a terrible influence on the household. I don’t think we need to come up with a list of all the scenarios of broken heterosexual homes to realize that “married mom and dad” is not a magic ticket to a well-off child. And yet isn’t it amazing that there are no laws or constitutional amendments afoot to ban lousy, selfish, cruel, drunk, drug-abusing, criminal, lazy, incompetent heterosexuals from marrying and having children with whomever they choose? In what way do a committed, stable, loving and values-nurturing gay couple harm their child more than the countless types of straight couples above? If you admit that there are plenty of heterosexual couples who are worse for kids than some gay couples, it seems that you’re going to have to take your campaign to ban marriage far beyond the “same-sex” arena. If you can’t bring yourself to admit that, however, than I assure you however much you pity me for my gayness, I pity you more for your willful blindness to common sense.
    My second and more important point is to remind you that there are essentially two types of children raised by gay couples: 1) adopted children. Ruth, there are currently millions upon millions of neglected, unwanted children on this earth. Their biological parents are either dead, destitute, missing, or abusive. These kids don’t have the chance for your vaunted “biological mommy and daddy”. Some of them are lucky enough, however, to find a home with a same-sex couple under whom they will flourish a lot more than they would in the orphanage. I challenge you to tell me that those children would be better off with no mommy and no daddy than with two daddies or two mommies. If you can really bring yourself to say that, then again, I’m very sorry for you. 2) the other kind of child of a same-sex couple is one conceived by artificial insemination. While the general morality of this procedure (for both gays and straights) is debated, that is really a separate issue. The fact is that a child whom a gay couple decides to conceive would not have existed had the couple not made that decision. The choice for that child is between “daddy and daddy/mommy and mommy” or NON-EXISTENCE. Surely you will concede that it is better to live with a gay family than to not live at all? Remember, gay marriage and gay parenting don’t deprive heterosexuals of the ability or right to have and raise their own children. No child is going to be deprived of mommy and daddy by some marauding gay couple. All that happens is that a) more children get a loving home than would have had one otherwise, and b) more children are brought into the world because of AI. The whole zero-sum game that NOM is playing is a fraud: more gay parents doesn’t mean fewer straight parents! It just means more parents, more stability, more loving family bonds, and fewer kids without homes at all.

  17. Chairm
    February 22nd, 2011 at 15:15 | #17

    Alex made a false assertion:

    “the kind of persecution that Chairm (and Leland and Orson Scott Card and Robbie George, etc etc) openly support”

    Neither I nor Leland nor OSC nor RG have advocated, supported, or endorsed persecution.

  18. Chairm
    February 22nd, 2011 at 15:22 | #18

    Alex, I referred to related people who are similarily situated with the people you had in mind in your previous comment. Why did you switch to child-adult scenarios?

    You asserted but did not substantiate the following:

    “Forms of sexual activity such as incest (heterosexual or homosexual) do in fact have those negative consequences–they destroy the family dynamic that is known to be necessary for personal wellbeing, they wreak havoc and confusion for other members of the family, and, perhaps most alarmingly, they often involve circumstances where consent is ambiguous at best.”

    And you are claiming that same-sex sexual behavior has none of these negative consequences for the family dynamic? I think you are over-reaching.

    But we can take what you said as given, for the sake of discussion, and proceed from there. You are clearly asserting that sexual behavior and family dynamics are directly connected, right?

  19. Chairm
    February 22nd, 2011 at 15:40 | #19

    Alex said: “Absent any evidence of harm to anyone, however, you have NO RIGHT to infringe upon my–or anyone else’s–liberty and inalienable right to pursue happiness.”

    The absence of harm does not justify the promotion of something as preferential. You are off-target. You need to show the presence of just cause to promote. The core meaning of marriage provides justification that the SSM campaign and its argumentation rejects; and yet you offer no alternative justification for promoting the SSM idea to an elevated status.

    The societal preference for the marriage idea over the SSM idea is hardly an infringement on your liberty. You seek preferential status (marital status is preferential) on the basis of your gay identity. But you still have not shown how same-sex sexual behavior merits such a status. And you have made it clear that the gay identity is your proffered justification for a change in society that you feel entitlted to impose on all of society — via your rights-based-talk. Yet your rights are not being infringed.

    Society may discriminate between marriage and other stuff.

    You assert that society MUST discirminate between SSM and other stuff. The assertion has not been justified by you, yet.

    * * *

    If the following from you was measured, that is calmly calculated by yourself before hitting the Submit Comment button, then, your earnest and deliberate insults are noted:

    “If you would prefer to live in a society where your cruel, senseless prejudices can be given free rein, I suggest you move to the Islamic Republic of Iran. [1] I hear they do public hangings of gay people. [2] Very biblical. [3] Or maybe found your own “Christian Republic of Antarctica,” or “Halachic State of Mars.” [4] There you can treat people you don’t like however you please. [5] But in this country, we are governed by reasonable and limited laws that serve to protect individual rights and individual thriving–not destroy them. [6]”

    I numbered your sentences to help you discern your errors.

    1. Discriminating between marriage and nonmarriage is not cruel nor senseless. Based on your commentary’s lack of justification, discriminating in favor of SSM over the rest of nonmarriage is arbitrary.

    2. I oppose hangings, public or otherwise, of any human being.

    3. The anti-Bible remark is off-target but it seems very important for you to have made it.

    4. [Blink]

    5. Society may treat some types of relationships and arrangements via a tolerative status, a protective status, or a preferential status; the rest is outlawed (or not tolerated culturally). My treatment of people is based on respect for human dignity and the firm ground of reason. Given that an appeal to that might persuade me to your viewpoint, it is remarkable that you have abandoned both in your closing remarks directed toward me.

    6. SSM argumentation does not provide a reasonable view of lawmaking; it does assume that Government owns the foundational social institution of civil society; it does assume that Government owns each and every union of husband and wife; it does assume that gay identity politics trumps both reason and principles of limited government.

    And the marriage law does not destroy people. It is a positive law based on the common good as acknowledged in the legal system and in the culture: the core meaning of the social institution that integrates the sexes and provides for responsible procreation.

    Given your passion for your viewpoint, you are trying to be diligent here and that is commendable. Please add reason and respect for human dignity to your comments and to your responses to your fellow commenters here. Thanks.

  20. Chairm
    February 22nd, 2011 at 15:43 | #20

    Alex, I’ll repeat the question you might choose to answer directly:

    “Alex, on what principled basis is sexual behavior a matter for public policy or for legal measures?”

  21. Alex
    February 22nd, 2011 at 19:02 | #21

    Chairm,
    Again, there seems to be a problem (whether deliberate or unintentional, I don’t know) whereby you sort of hop between two facets/levels of the gay rights debate. The first, more fundamental issue is whether gay people should be free to form and sustain romantic relationships (or indeed have any sort of intimacy) without the fear of government intervention. As Sean noted, it was less than two decades ago that a U.S. state took it upon itself to barge onto private property and arrest two men for being intimate. It was less than a decade ago that the right of the state to do that was finally found to be an unconstitutional use of state power. So in THIS realm of the debate, I think you should go on record with your opinion: do you believe, as a matter of principle, that the government has the right to/ought to subject gay and lesbian citizens to arrest and prosecution for their actions? If you do, then your talk about giving homosexuality “preferential” treatment is not relevant, because we’re not talking about the government RECOGNITION of gay relationships, only the lack of government restrictions on private, consensual gay sexual activity. So before I even try to talk about the marriage issue, I think it’s important for you to clearly articulate where you stand on the issue of whether people like me ought to be liable to criminal penalties, and if so, how you justify that, given what I’ve said about the fact that same-sex sexual activity is clearly not akin to such harmful and abusive acts as–Heaven forbid–incest, rape, or pedophilia. If you’re not going to concede that the state should at the very least leave me and other gay people alone, then discussion about same-sex marriage is pointless.

  22. Chairm
    February 23rd, 2011 at 04:46 | #22

    Alex said: “The first, more fundamental issue is whether gay people should be free to form and sustain romantic relationships (or indeed have any sort of intimacy) without the fear of government intervention.”

    The Texas case was a setup, Alex, and the police did not barge in with the goal of arresting persons suspect of transgressing the sodomy law. The police were given other reasons to enter the place. Live and let live was the practice even with that law on the books.

    On matters of private sexual behavior, for the most part, I object to police squads being formed to invade homes and private places to catch people fornicating or otherwise consensually acting immorally sexually.

    Public parks and the like, that’s another matter on which we might agree, yes? Mutual consent is not a trump card.

  23. Chairm
    February 23rd, 2011 at 04:51 | #23

    My question is relevlant, Alex, and your comment does not show otherwise.

    “Alex, on what principled basis is sexual behavior a matter for public policy or for legal measures?”

    Your answer ought not to depend on what you described as behavior that government should leave alone. Rather the other way around.

  24. Ruth
    February 23rd, 2011 at 10:48 | #24

    @Alex
    Would you settle for private intimacy?

Comments are closed.