Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
Bullies

Bullies

Last updated on: January 22, 2010 at 3:10 pm by Fred Clark

Bullies 2010-01-22T15:10:35-05:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

The Alliance Defense Fund is fighting for its life.

It's current case — defending the constitutionality of California's anti-gay marriage Proposition 8 — cuts to the heart and soul of this organization and, indeed, to the core and essence of the religious right groups who came together to create it.

The ADF was founded as a sectarian, conservative response to the ACLU.* Where the American Civil Liberties Union exists to protect the rights of minorities from being denied or eroded by the majority, the ADF took on the opposite mission. It was founded to defend the majority's privilege, to ensure that the rights of minorities are not regarded as equal to the rights of those who outnumber them, and that these minority rights not be allowed to deny or erode the hegemony of the majority perspective.

The defense of Prop 8 is therefore the archetypal ADF case. It gives their legal team the opportunity to argue, in court, that the constitutional guarantee of the rights of minorities must not be interpreted as overriding traditionally practiced limitations of those rights and that majority rule must never be made subservient to the rule of law.

And to be clear, the ADF is arguing exactly that. Explicitly that. That is their case in the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Here is ADF lawyer Austin Nimocks:

"The fundamental issue here is whether or not in America we respect and should uphold the right of a free people to make social policy choices through the democratic process."

The particulars of Perry and Prop 8 are almost incidental. What is at stake here for ADF is their entire rationale and the whole agenda of the religious right. Everything the "moral majority" has been fighting for in every aspect of the "culture wars" is at stake in this case: public school curriculums reflecting the views of the majority sect, official sectarian prayers and holiday displays, the legitimacy of laws requiring all citizens to abide by the majority sect's notion of private morality. Ultimately, the very notion of America as a holy, sectarian nation as decreed by Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Paine and the rest of the Founding Fathers.

For the ADF and the religious right, "the right of a free people to make social policy choices through the democratic process" means this and only this: the majority of American citizens are Christians and thus that majority has the right to pass laws expressly and exclusively based on their Christian beliefs.

This is what the ADF is for — both in the sense that this is what the group favors and advocates and in the sense that this is the group's purpose. As long as Christians — real, true Christians — constitute the majority, the religious right has no interest in the competing claims of minority rights. It's more or less the pre-Vatican II, pre-John Courtney Murray position of the Roman Catholic Church, which advocated state-sponsored religion in Catholic-majority countries and secular pluralism in nations where Catholics were in the minority.

In the particular case in California, the ADF is vehemently arguing that the Constitution doesn't mind that the heterosexual majority has voted to restrict the rights of the non-heterosexual minority. Contrary to what Mr. Nimocks might like to think, that is not "the democratic process." The technical term for a majority voting to give itself rights while denying those same rights to the minority is "mob rule." Which is different.

Nimocks is saying that the majority has the right to be a bully. Such bullying is not simply an incidental tactic of the religious right, it is it's raison d'etre. And like many bullies, the ADF and the religious right tend to crumble when anyone stands up to their bullying. Like many bullies, they like to pretend that they are the victims — hence the incoherent Persecuted Hegemon phenomenon that characterizes so much of the religious right (not to mention the pathetic spectacle of the ADF bullies crying and running away when faced with the prospect of cameras in the courtroom).

It's not easy to draw the best and the brightest when your law firm was founded to rail against "intellectual elites," so the Alliance Defense Fund usually allies itself with some outside attorney to do the heavy legal lifting. In the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, that turns out to be Washington attorney Charles Cooper. Realizing that the ADF's mob-rule hegemony argument is about as utterly unconstitutional as an argument can be (constitutions exist to prevent exactly what the ADF is arguing — the mere fact that we have a Constitution refutes their argument), Cooper has glommed onto an argument based less on the law than on what might be called papal sociology**:

"We say that the central and the defining purpose of marriage is to channel naturally procreative sexual activity between men and women into stable, enduring unions for the sake of begetting, nurturing and raising the next generation. Plaintiffs say that the central and constitutionally mandated purpose of marriage is simply to provide formal government recognition to loving, committed relationships."

Unfortunately for Cooper, as opposing attorney Ted Olson (yes, that Ted Olson — I know, right?) notes, the Supreme Court has tended to view marriage through the lens of the Constitution and not from the perspective of Humane Vitae, so they have clearly and repeatedly stated that marriage is "an associational right, it’s a liberty right, it’s a privacy right, and it’s an expression of your identity."

(The quotations here are from Margaret Talbot's excellent New Yorker article, "A Risky Proposal: Is it too soon to petition the Supreme Court on gay marriage?" I also highly recommend listening to Talbot's discussion of the case with NPR's Terry Gross — transcript here.)

Even more unfortunately for Cooper and the ADF, this exclusively procreative definition of marriage forced the judge hearing this case, Vaughn Walker, to recall the last marriage ceremony he performed:

"The last marriage that I performed, Mr. Cooper, involved a groom who was 95, and the bride was 83. I did not demand that they prove that they intended to engage in procreative activity."

Ahem.

Walker is a Bush 41 appointee, and has been described as a conservative with a libertarian streak. I'm not sure that matters — the question of Equal Protection here is so stark, and the arguments defending Proposition 8 so insubstantial and incoherent, that this case ought to be a no-brainer.

But as Talbot points out, this case will almost certainly not settle the matter until it works its way through the courts all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States. And as we were powerfully reminded yesterday, the 5-justice conservative majority on that court doesn't always concern itself with stark matters of law or rejecting incoherent and insubstantial arguments. The constitutional question of Equal Protection is crystal clear, but for the partisan faction of Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas, Humanae Vitae will likely still prove to be the guiding document.

In his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Anton
in Scalia wrote:

“Many A
mericans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive.”

This is, of course, factually accurate. Many Americans do hold the views Scalia describes. Scalia himself seems to hold them. But why he or any other justice, judge or lawyer should think that such views have even the slightest bearing on the rights guaranteed by the Constitution is baffling.

So we will likely be left with Justice Kennedy as the potential swing vote. On the bright side, Kennedy has a long history of agreeing with Ted Olson. On the down side, Kennedy has a long history of agreeing with Ted Olson.

When this case reaches the Supreme Court, the justices may — likely will — rule in favor of Proposition 8. But they won't be able to argue in favor of it any more than Cooper or the ADF are able to. Legal arguments in support of tyrannical mob rule cannot be found. Nor can they be sustained.

Perry v. Schwarzenegger may not settle the question of marriage equality in the short term, but it has demonstrated for all to see that in the long term there is only one outcome constitutionally possible. Once the bullies have been revealed as nothing more than that, the rest is inevitable.

– – – – – – – – – – – – –

* The ADF's primary purpose is sanctified bullying — arguing that the establishment of sectarian hegemony is somehow not in conflict with the First Amendment prohibition against the establishment of religion. The group also takes up a great many cases where it — more defensibly and constitutionally — argues for Christians' right to the free exercise of religion. In most of those free exercise cases, awkwardly, the lead attorneys tend to be people from the ACLU. Where the ADF has its firmest legal standing, in other words, it tends to be redundant — not so much the "conservative" counterpart of the ACLU as its sectarian sidekick.

** This primacy of procreation is uniquely Catholic and, theologically, a bit bizarre. It's not just extra-biblical but contra-biblical. Opponents of same-sex marriage like to cite the "normative" biblical passages on marriage. See if you can find any of those that can be reconciled with the Catholic idea of marriage as primarily for procreation. That's nowhere to be found in, say, Genesis 2.

Apart from theology, it's also not easy in the entire history of human storytelling, poetry and drama to find examples of lovers coming together for "the defining purpose of channeling naturally procreative sexual activity into stable, enduring unions for the sake of begetting, nurturing and raising the next generation." Cooper defines marriage without any reference to, or need for, love. I don't mean romantic, soap-opera passion, I mean love — devotion, affection, fidelity, abiding care, etc. Cooper is arguing for marriage as something wholly apart from that. That's just deeply weird. It's not just unconstitutional, it's inhuman.

evangelicals

Previous Post

January 22, 2010

I Don't

Next Post

January 24, 2010 I think maybe part of the reason you're so angry is you keep demanding that you get screwed and then, not surprisingly, you keep getting screwed

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

In Revelation, what is the correct order of the first four seals opened by the Lamb?

Select your answer to see how you score.

White horse, red horse, black horse, pale horse Pale horse, red horse, white horse, black horse White horse, black horse, red horse, pale horse Red horse, white horse, pale horse, black horse