General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTop Anti-Gay Lawyer Tells Court Brown v Board of Education was Wrongly Decided
Monte Neil Stewart is the lead attorney defending Nevadas practice of anti-gay marriage discrimination and hes a member of the legal team defending similar discrimination in Utah. He also just told a federal appeals court that Brown v. Board of Education was wrongly decided and we should return to the days when public school discrimination was allowed.
Stewart didnt say so in explicit terms, but thats the clear consequence of an argument he just presented to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, as part of his effort to defeat marriage equality in that state. Although both Nevadas Democratic Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto and its Republican Governor Brian Sandoval agree that their states marriage discrimination law cannot withstand legal scrutiny, Stewart continues to defend unequal treatment for same-sex couples as the attorney for the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage.
In that role, Stewart submitted a letter to the Ninth Circuit on Tuesday arguing that the Supreme Courts recent decision authorizing a New York state town to open its legislative sessions with a prayer also supports the conclusion that marriage discrimination is constitutional. According to Stewart, n upholding the towns practice of beginning town council meetings with prayer, the Court made several statements indicating that the First Amendments Establishment Clause, made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, should not be interpreted in a way that renders invalid a practicelike prayer in public meetingsthat was well established at the time the First and Fourteenth Amendments were adopted.
It is true that the Supreme Court did say in its Town of Greece v. Galloway decision on Monday that legislative prayer is acceptable because history supported the conclusion that legislative invocations are compatible with the Constitution, but that holding was limited to the context of the separation of church and state. Stewart, however, thinks this holding should be applied very broadly. In his words, [a]ny test the Court adopts for determining Fourteenth Amendment limitations on a States authority to define marriage ought likewise respect a practicenamely, the man-woman definition of marriagethat was universally accepted by the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/05/07/3435053/top-anti-gay-lawyer-inadvertently-tells-court-that-brown-v-board-of-education-was-wrongly-decided/
alp227
(32,015 posts)showing the anti-gay side is on the wrong side of history.
randys1
(16,286 posts)We know that 99% of all teaparty and 89% of all repubs are vile and viscous racists and homophobic assholes, it is just nice to hear them admit it once in a while.
Make no mistake, the astro turn teaparty exists solely for racism
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)From the text: buried so that you overlook it, the admission: "Stewart didnt say so in explicit terms, but thats the clear consequence of an argument he just presented".
He may be a bad person, but that does *not* make it OK to lie about him.