FRC Wants Congress to Pressure the Supreme Court


The Family Research Council is terribly concerned about the two marriage equality cases slated to be heard by the Supreme Court at the end of March (as they should be). And they’re urging their followers to send messages to their senators and representatives to pressure the Supreme Court to rule against equality:

In a direct-mail piece dated on Valentine’s Day, FRC President Tony Perkins says it is important to get members of Congress “to pressure the Supreme Court to come down on the right side of marriage.” Recipients of the letter are encouraged to sign petitions to their representative and senators to urge them to “PRESSURE THE SUPREME COURT TO RULE IN FAVOR OF TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE!”

The text of the petition:

[Representative/Senator], as one of your constituents, I ask that you please use your influence to urge the Supreme Court to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act and state statutes banning same-sex “marriage.” The covenant marriage relationship between one man and one woman is a universally accepted social tradition that transcends all cultures and predates any religion. It is essential for procreation and the stability of society. I respectfully request that you do all in your power to urge the Court to uphold traditional marriage. Thank you for your service to our country.

The Supreme Court is supposed to be immune to such pressure so they can base their rulings on the Constitution rather than on popular opinion. The Founding Fathers did that deliberately by giving them lifetime appointments and not having them be elected. Isn’t it funny how these people claim to revere the Constitution, yet jettison it immediately when it doesn’t suit their purposes.

Comments

  1. gshelley says

    The covenant marriage relationship between one man and one woman is a universally accepted social tradition that transcends all cultures and predates any religion. It is essential for procreation and the stability of society.

    As always, even if that were true, how is it an argument against SSM?

  2. jnorris says

    The FRC’s only real worry is the court rules against marriage equality. A negative ruling leaves them with nothing to rant against and spew hatred on. The best thing for the FRC is for the court to rule for equality so the FRC can begin a fresh campaign to raise money to amend the Constitution (not that the money would ever be used for that).
    *
    Unless the Tea Party and the American Taliban have a Plan B and a new group to hate ready in the wings, they have to pray for an affirmative ruling.

  3. Chris A says

    @gshelley #1:

    You beat me to the low hanging fruit. My question is, are they really that [stupid | reality averse], or do they just assume that their pool of donors is?

  4. says

    “The covenant marriage relationship between one man and one woman is a universally accepted social tradition that transcends all cultures and predates any religion.”

    The Bible itself mandates polygamy and concubinage. Abraham had at least one wife, Sarah, and at least two concubines, Hagar and Masek. It is uncertain whether Keturah was Abraham’s wife or merely a concubine, as the Bible gives different accounts of her position in his household. Jacob had at least two concubines, Zilpah and Bilhah, in addition to his two wives, Leah and Rachel. The Kings of Israel and Judah typically had many women: King David had 8 wives, while his son Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. Then there is the matter of “levirite” marriage, where a man was obligated to bear offspring on his brother’s widow if the brother never had a son.

    Never mind the fact that monogamy is relatively rare in human cultures. Polygamy is historically more common, and many cultures practiced polyandry to some extent (where brothers would share a single wife.) There are even forms of polygyny where two sisters or more sisters share a single husband, culturally distinct from a single man marrying two or more sisters.

    Alas, facts and history prove that the FRC and people like them are willfully ignorant and that the claims they make about religion are a pack of lies, and they just can’t face that.

  5. oranje says

    For these sorts of things, we need the liberal analog to the “if a Muslim did it” thought experiment. Because if it was a liberal group doing this, the FRC would explode with rage because of tampering.

  6. eric says

    The covenant marriage relationship between one man and one woman is a universally* accepted social tradition that transcends all cultures and predates any religion.

    *Claim of universality not valid in Europe, Canada, California, Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia.

  7. Synfandel says

    The covenant of marriage relationship between one man and one woman…is essential for procreation…

    Someone needs to have the birds and bees talk with these folks.

  8. says

    Synfandel “Someone needs to have the birds and bees talk with these folks.”
    Look, when are you supposed to get the chastity belt key from the bride’s father, if not after the man-woman wedding? What happens after a homo so-called “wedding”? Two keys? No keys? Madness!

  9. oranje says

    @#8: It also brings up the question of all of the polygamy in the bible. Why, if that was a model for so long, do they harp about (ONLY!) one man and one woman and that’s how it’s always been? Do they have some kind of argument for that?

  10. abb3w says

    @0, Ed Brayton:

    The Family Research Council is terribly concerned about the two marriage equality cases slated to be heard by the Supreme Court at the end of March (as they should be).

    I’m not convinced they should be. A broad ruling declaring all such bans broadly unconstitutional is really unlikely, given the current composition of the court. Pretty much anything less is likely to be a mere speedbump on the overall trajectory — though I suppose it’s a speedbump they might be irrationally concerned about.

    If California’s ban is upheld, that will do nothing to stop it from facing reversal by another referendum. Prop 8 passed in California by a 4.5 point margin, back when national attitude was nearer a 15 point margin of opposition. Nationally, it seems now near a 10-point margin of support, which would suggest a referendum to reverse would win by 20 points — which is circa what 2012 polling suggested. It probably could pass even in a non-Presidential election year; I’m guessing along side the 2014 midterms.

    Similarly, at most the Massachusetts case will find that the Federal Government doesn’t have the obligation to recognize gay marriages, without finding they lack the power if the Legislature chooses to exercise it under the Full Faith And Credit and Effect Thereof parts of Article IV. Nor is the ruling likely to deny the Legislature the ability to compel states to recognize all marriages from other states. Either exercise of legislative authority will clearly have to wait until after the 2014 elections (or a miraculous Road To Damascus moment for the GOP) before it passes the US House and Senate. While it would astonish me if it was that soon, it seems likely before 2020; and if the ruling doesn’t oblige the government to recognize state-sanctioned gay marriages now, it is likely to build impetus to passing a federal law mandating both federal and state recognition of any state-sanctioned marriage.

    After that, the only question is when Nevada will decide to add gay marriages to its marriage tourism offerings. From what I can turn up, polling in Nevada on gay marriage support gas lined up about to the national trend (thus,10 point favorable margin expected; possibly 15 point by 2014), and currently has Democrats dominating both houses of the legislature. It seems unlikely the current Governor Brian Sandoval would sign such a law, given he’s a Republican and a Catholic. However, it’s not inconceivable, if he seeks to lead the trajectory of the GOP to raise prospects for a presidential bid. More plausible, it might well be an explicit issue in the 2014 gubernatorial elections there.

    Vegas gay weddings plus federally required co-recognition will effectively reduce the issue to state-by-state mop-up.

  11. Shawn Smith says

    Vegas gay weddings plus federally required co-recognition will effectively reduce the issue to state-by-state mop-up.

    Nevada is one of the states that has it in the state constitution that marriage is between one man and one woman. It would take another Nevada constitutional amendment to change that, which takes at least 4 years (it has to pass both houses of the biennial legislature and then get a majority vote in two consecutive general elections.) So, although there might be Vegas gay weddings, there will be no Vegas gay marriages for quite some time. Unless such state amendments are ruled unconstitutional, of course.

  12. Curt Cameron says

    “The covenant marriage relationship between one man and one woman is a universally accepted social tradition that transcends all cultures and predates any religion.”

    Hey, at least the FRC admitted that marriage predates religion.

    We should throw that back at them when they whine that marriage is a holy institution ordained by God, or whatever it is they say.

  13. gardengnome says

    If the SC is supposed to be immune to such ‘pressure’ why do they think it’ll be effective?

  14. abb3w says

    @13ish, Shawn Smith

    It would take another Nevada constitutional amendment to change that, which takes at least 4 years (it has to pass both houses of the biennial legislature and then get a majority vote in two consecutive general elections.)

    I’m aware the amendment exists; that sounds about the right timeline, yes. Maybe a year or two more; possibly not, since the Governor doesn’t get much say.

Leave a Reply