Loser's Parade

And there are a lot of them after the passage of the marriage equality law in New York.

First, of course, is the misnamed NOM, which is nothing but losers at this point. From Pam's House Blend, a run-down on their "strategy" to repeal the act:

From NOM's blog:

PHASE 1:
Elect pro-marriage majorities next November that will approve a marriage amendment in both the Assembly and Senate during the 2013 legislative session.

PHASE 2:
Protect pro-marriage candidates in the 2014 elections, so that the amendment can receive final legislative approval in the 2015 legislative session.

PHASE 3:
Successfully pass the ballot measure when it goes before voters in November 2015.

A 4-year process seems like a long time-and it is-but it's achievable.

(I seem to remember that they tried that in Massachusetts. Where same-sex marriage is still the law.)

Oh, and about NOM's record in electing hate-friendly candidates, Jeremy Hooper has some examples from recent history.

And from Hooper again, the doyenne of doing nothing that really supports marriage herself, outlining the plan and repeating again her call to "let the people vote" -- which is actually, when you stop to think about it, a violation of the federal Constitution.

Scott Wooledge at Daily Kos reports on the first lawsuit filed to overturn the law:

. . . Rev. Jason J. McGuire, Executive Director, New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, said, “Constitutional liberties were violated. Today we are asking the court to intervene in its rightful role as the check and balance on an out-of-control State Legislature.” From their website, the suit aledges:

meetings that violated New York State Open Meetings Laws.

the suspension of normal Senate voting procedures to prevent Senators who opposed the bill from speaking.

failure to follow Senate procedures that require that a bill must be sent to appropriate committees prior to being placed before the full Senate for a vote.

unprecedented Senate lock-outs by which lobbyists and the public were denied access to elected representatives.

the Governor’s violation of the constitutionally mandated three-day review period before the Legislature votes on a bill by unjustifiably issuing a message of necessity.

promises (which were fulfilled) by high-profile elected officials and Wall Street financiers to make large campaign contributions to Republican senators who switched their vote from opposing to supporting the Marriage Equality Act.

The governor's spokesman had a succinct comment: the suit is without merit and "[t]he plaintiffs lack a basic understanding of the laws of the state of New York."

Jim Burroway has a profile of the Liberty Counsel's attorney on the case, Rena Lindevaldsen. Let's just say that integrity is not her middle name. Read it -- it's astonishing that someone like that is allowed to practice law. And considering her participation, I'm not at all surprised that the plaintiffs don't understand New York law -- they have trouble wrapping their heads around the concept of rule by law to begin with. And it wouldn't be complete without a quote from Mat Staver, also of Liberty Counsel, who is just as ethical as Lindevaldsen. Quote kindly provided by Joe Jervis.

Also threatening to sue is the Rev. Sen. Ruben "I am the Church and the State" Diaz, who's going to have all those marriages -- performed under New York state law -- annulled.

I think this sort of sums up the degree of success all these snake-oil salesmen are going to have:



I'm surprised we haven't heard from Tony Perkins and Peter LaBarbera yet. I'm sure they're sweating over something suitably vicious.