The National Organization for Marriage’s presidential pledge

In the age of candidate pledges, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM – the implication presumably being they wish to nom nom away the gays) has put forward a pledge that claims to “commit [candidates] to concrete steps to support marriage.” So far it has been signed by three presidential candidates (Bachmann, Santorum and Romney) and includes some interesting caveats I thought would be worth pointing out:

Two, nominate to the U.S. Supreme Court and federal bench judges who are committed to restraint and to applying the original meaning of the Constitution, appoint an attorney general similarly committed, and thus reject the idea our Founding Fathers inserted a right to gay marriage in our Constitution [bold mine].

Ignoring the fact that there is truly no such thing as “restraint” in any situation that requires a human being to act as a neutral arbiter, I agree that it is time we return to the original meaning of the Constitution by abolishing the concept of Judicial Review. (Because, as you know, it is absent in the Constitution and only exists by the off-note declaration of Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, 1803). In addition, we ought to repeal all of the amendments to the infallible document since “to amend” is to blemish; if the Founding Fathers really believed in the Bill of Rights it would have been approved at the constitutional convention, sheeple.

We must also reject the idea that the Founding Fathers inserted a right to gay marriage in the Constitution (I did a CTRL+F for “gay marriage” on the .pdf and there were exactly zero results). Hell, I don’t think we’re going far enough because the Constitution is also suspiciously silent on the controversial “straight marriage” issue, which is evidence enough for me to suggest that we close those tax loopholes. It’s tough, but being a staunch Constitutionalist these are the calls I have to make – and African-Americans, I’m sorry but your rights have to take the back seat on this one, too (literally – only five-fifths of a person get to sit at the front of the bus).

I just really wish the document was less static and dead (living??) and that the Founding Fathers would have outlined the general overarching principles of rights and responsibilities that we could extrapolate into a 21st century world.

What can I say? I’m a dreamer!

Four, establish a presidential commission on religious liberty to investigate and document reports of Americans who have been harassed or threatened for exercising key civil rights to organize, to speak, to donate or vote for marriage and to propose new protections, if needed [bold mine].

This is actually the clause that has gained the most media criticism from the pledge (and rightly so) since it implies that the worst bullies are the GLBT community, a claim that is so utterly absurd that I can only comment by ramming my head against the wall. Though I believe the government has a responsibility to take seriously any threat to our “key civil rights” there must be a double-standard and the willingness to point out even when it is the threat. Unfortunately, this never happens and high-publicity attempts rarely amount to anything more than a witch-hunt (look to Rep. Steve King’s “investigation” into radical Islam) as our personal liberties are whittled away in the name of security (The PATRIOT Act).

The worst part of this clause is the line “and to propose new protections, if needed” since it is the same rationale advocates for Hate Crime Legislation make, the same kind of legislation Bachmann, Santorum and Romney rally so hard against.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s