Debriefing the briefs in Gill: Colorful cast of characters aligns with DOJ in support of DOMA
As in politics, court cases sometimes make strange bedfellows. The pairing of Bush v. Gore rivals Ted Olson and David Boies on the legal challenge to California’s Prop. 8 is an obvious example. Now, there’s Barack Obama and Gary G. Kreep.
Who is Gary G. Kreep, you ask? For starters, he’s the amicus counsel for the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuals, otherwise known as NARTH. The organization is one of 17 entities that filed amicus briefs in support of the Obama Administration’s appeal in Gill v. OPM, one of our two lawsuits challenging Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The brief Kreep submitted on NARTH’s behalf catalogs research that purportedly shows that homosexuality is not immutable—in other words, that people can change their sexual orientation (from page 13: “One study reported that seeing an attractive woman ‘intensively’ excited 13 percent of a sample of homosexual men. The author of another study reported that as many as half of the lesbians whom she knew had reportedly been heterosexual until middle age.”).
But Kreep, co-founder of the conservative United States Justice Foundation, is also one of the most prominent proponents of the allegation that President Obama isn’t an American citizen and thus has no business being president—perhaps you’ve heard of the “birther” movement? When he’s not penning briefs supporting the Obama Administration’s defense of DOMA, Kreep is busy suing him—on behalf of notorious homophobe and fellow “birther” Alan Keyes – in two lawsuits alleging Obama is an illegal president.
Keywords: Frenemies, “It’s a Small World,” Unicorns.
Besides NARTH, a host of other conservative, mostly anti-LGBT organizations also weighed in with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, where DOJ is appealing federal District Court Judge Joseph L. Tauro’s July 2010 ruling in favor of our plaintiffs, seven married couples and three widowers that were denied access to federal programs because of DOMA. Judge Tauro concluded that DOMA is unconstitutional.
Here’s a sampling of some of the amici claims, with some helpful context.
Concerned Women for America
We love Beverly LaHaye’s organization’s creative use of the term “juggernaut:”
“In essence, Plaintiffs-Appellees complain that despite their ever-increasing political power and success, the LGBT movement is politically powerless. But that argument is nothing more than a judicial request for a political trump card. If granted, every political loss would entitle them to a judicial win, despite their actual status as a political juggernaut.”
Yes, it’s true the LGBT community is actually just a massive inexorable force crushing every obstacle in our path to full equality. We’ve been especially destructive in the 29 states that ban equal marriage rights and other relationship recognition, and in the 30 states where you can be fired, and booted from housing and public accommodations just for being LGBT. Currently, we’re stampeding like a herd of angry elephants over legislatures in Iowa and New Hampshire, states where marriage equality is hanging in the balance because of shifting political winds.
Foundation for Moral Law
It’s not surprising that the amicus brief filed by Alabama jurist Roy Moore’s organization relies heavily on the Bible for evidence in support of DOMA. Moore, you may recall, was ousted from his post as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court a few years back for refusing to remove his 5000-plus pound monument of the Ten Commandments from his courthouse.
The Foundation for Moral Law’s brief cites the books of Genesis, Corinthians, Exodus, Leviticus and Romans. One passage quotes biblical prohibitions on adultery (Exodus), reminds us that “neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God,” (Corinthians), then turns to Genesis’s marital ideal of a man leaving his father and mother for his wife “and they shall become one flesh.”
“Though not proffered by Congress,” the brief states, “these reasons provide additional interests that bear at least a rational relation to DOMA.”
Liberty Counsel
The Liberty Counsel’s brief, co-authored by founder Mat Staver, liberally cites books like Joseph Nicolosi’s 2002 tome “A Parent’s Guide to Preventing Homosexuality.”
The book – and the brief – is full of insights like this one:
“Of course, a boy raised in a dysfunctional or nonfunctional family is not doomed to grow up homosexual, but such a family structure may predispose the young boy to homosexual considerations.”
Certainly, this assertion doesn’t reflect well on Concerned Women for America’s Beverly LaHaye or Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum – another DOJ amicus – since they’re both the parents of gay sons. You can’t make this stuff up.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Church of Latter Day Saints, et al.
In their brief, the Catholic Bishops, the Mormon Church and a host of evangelical churches state that Judge Tauro “invalidated DOMA as if it were nothing more than raw, anti-homosexual bigotry. That is inaccurate and unfair. To be sure, a few members of Congress spoke harshly in the debate leading up to the vote. Like most, we reject any effort to disparage gays and lesbians.”
They also assert, “We are concerned about the happiness and welfare of our members, especially our member children.”
Breathtaking statements, in light of the Catholic Church’s sexual abuse scandal, the pronouncements of Pope John Paul II/Pope Benedict that gay and lesbian parents do violence to their children and that homosexuality is intrinsically evil, not to mention the anti-gay sermon Mormon Church Elder Boyd Packer delivered last year amid a rash of LGBT youth suicides.
Nothing like pointing fingers at the mean members of Congress for their harsh anti-gay rhetoric, though.