Racist Assholes File Brief in Michigan Marriage Case

Those who have been following my blog for many years may remember the names Kyle Bristow and Jason Van Dyke, two white supremacist douchebags who went to Michigan State and managed to get law degrees from other schools. They’ve filed an amicus brief in the Michigan marriage equality case in the 6th Circuit on behalf of the Traditionalist Youth Network. It’s every bit as inane as you would expect it to be.

It’s certainly not surprising that they would want to deny gay people the right to get married, both are hardcore bigots in every imaginable way. When my good friend Todd Heywood successfully petitioned a court to unseal arrest and conviction records for Van Dyke involving firearms charges that ended with him leaving MSU, he posted this charming message in response:

AIDS Infected Faggot and his Moonbat Buddy Are Playing With Fire

AIDS-ridden highway rest stop bathroom connoisseur Todd Heywood may not like what he gets when he plays with fire. When I first heard that he managed to convince a judge to essentially ignore the law and the clear intent of the Michigan legislature, I thought about just letting this one go. The truth of the matter is that Todd Heywood will die a horrible death due to complications from AIDS and will be screaming and rotting in Hell before I am even halfway into my career. Unfortunately for him, I don’t think there are any reststops on the road to the Malebolge – although I am sure he will find himself in the company of an entire legion of faggots.

Suffice to say, I am not going to let this stand. I plan on filing an Application for Leave to Appeal with the circuit court by the end of next week. In the interim, I am nearly finished compiling the information needed for a lawsuit that I intend to file against these two moonbats. Maybe, after spending a fortune on legal bills only to end up paying a hefty judgment, they will think twice before they tangle with me again.

Ironically, he had argued to the judge that unsealing those records would hurt his legal career. Apparently it never occurred to him that posting vile stuff like this in public might hurt his legal career. He never did sue over it, of course. This was all just pseudo-macho bluster, a little posturing for his bigoted buddies. I’m sure it made him the most popular kid on the white supremacist playground all week long.

The brief reads like one of Larry Klayman’s brief, heavy on political rhetoric and short on legal arguments.

The reason why banning same-sex marriage is a legitimate state interest is because the State of Michigan’s inherent police powers authorize the government to promote the health, safety, morals, and public welfare of its people, and it is respectfully submitted that same-sex marriage is an affront to the health, safety, morals, and public welfare of the residents of the State of Michigan—which is why the Western and American legal traditions have proscribed sodomy—much less same-sex marriage—for thousands and hundreds of years, respectively.

Translation: “Hell, we used to be able to lock them queers up and now they gittin’ all uppity and wants to get married? Aww hell no!” They actually begin the argument section of the brief with this:

Turning and turning in the widening gyre

The falcon cannot hear the falconer;

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.

W. B. Yeats, “The Second Coming,” (1919).

Uh, did you guys think you were writing a 10th grade composition paper instead of a legal brief?

Whereas sodomy was abhorred throughout Western and American history—and was permitted to be criminalized from time immemorial until Bowers v. Hardwick was reversed roughly a decade ago per Lawrence v. Texas— it is now so chic that its activists have been able to convince learned jurists to normalize it by ordering that those who

practice sodomy be permitted to marry one another.

So chic? Really?

Either government can reasonably regulate marriage, or it cannot—there is no middle ground. If a state cannot be permitted to define marriage as simply as constituting one man and one woman, then our culture will be taken down a very slippery slope that will see pedophiles, polygamists, zoophiles, those in incestuous relationships, and every other sexual deviant with proclivities now known or to be invented to challenge laws that, likewise, prevent them from marrying whom—or what—they wish.

That’s one of the dumbest slippery slope arguments you’ll ever see. The standard, if one applies the rational basis test, is whether a given law is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. One can, of course, conclude that a ban on same-sex marriage does not serve a legitimate state interest while a ban on polygamy and pedophilia does. In fact, one would have be a complete idiot not to see the obvious distinction between gay marriage and pedophilia.

Amusingly, the brief spends quite a bit of time arguing against Lawrence v Texas and saying that the law should still throw gay people in jail, quoting Robert Bork and Phyllis Schlafly. They also quote Roy Moore’s concurrence in Ex Parte HH, which I have quoted many times as well, in which he said that the state has the power of the sword and must use it to punish homosexuality.

The whole point of the brief is one long argument from tradition — hey, we used to be able to kill gay people and put them in prison and now we can’t. Gosh, I feel so sad for you that other people are actually getting the right to live their lives free from your fascist religious desires. My heart fucking bleeds for you.

"As a carpenter, I resemble that remark.As a human, I do not resemble Dahhnie at ..."

Trump Awkwardly Tries to Walk Back ..."
"Well, they add to NATO and to date they are not able to afford the ..."

Trump Awkwardly Tries to Walk Back ..."
"Aha! The path ahead is clear!Gore their oxen! Gore them!With hot, flaming, dead porcupines, gore ..."

Trump Awkwardly Tries to Walk Back ..."
"Nooooo. No, Noah.In 1971 a friend, a wrestling fan, treated me to a night of ..."

Trump Awkwardly Tries to Walk Back ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • I’m sure the court will give their brief all the serious consideration it deserves. The question is whether to use it to house break a dog or line a bird cage.

  • eamick

    Uh, did you guys think you were writing a 10th grade composition paper instead of a legal brief?

    They even misquoted the poem. I guess actually looking it up was too much trouble.

  • eamick, yeah! I wonder what they have against anarchy?

  • I respectfully submit that Mrs. Bristow and Van Dyke are an affront to the health, safety, morals, and public welfare of the residents of the State of Michigan and therefore should be banned.

  • brucegee1962

    I’ve read a fair amount about Yeats, and can speak with a fair degee of certainty that he didn’t have homosexuals in mind when he wrote that.

    Also, on the slippery slope argument – it actually does seem to me as people who support gay marriage will end up supporting polygamy as well. The obvious difference between these cases and the other cases mentioned is consent (children and animals can’t). The state used to have a compelling interest in preventing polygamy when it was routinely almost a form of slavery for women, but it shouldn’t be too hard nowadays to make sure that consent in a polygamous relationship isn’t coerced.

  • Err, that should be Misters. As in, the plural of Mister. I’m well aware they’re male.

  • Taz

    You have to admit, they submitted this brief with passionate intensity.

  • Numenaster

    It’s hilarious seeing the objections from people who really think that “the way things were when I was a kid” is a rational basis for a legal system. Sorry, mossbacked relics, those laws have PRINCIPLES under them, and courts are now applying those principles and finding that some laws should never have been passed. That’s not judicial activism, it’s judicial review. And it’s exactly what the Constitution calls for.

  • oranje

    @5: I think that’s why those of us in multiple relationships go for polyamory instead. Polygamy has a very, very heavy connotation of patriarchy and control.

    Then again, I’ve heard the righties assailing us, too. Meh.

  • I see my comment was already anticipated: if nothing else, these two “[a]re full of passionate intensity.”

  • What law schools did these two charmers attend? Between them and the firm that just cleared Chris Christie to the satisfaction of Chris Christie, it’s nice to see the profession fighting its image problem with every tool at its disposal.

  • Quantum Mechanic

    In fact, one would have be a complete idiot not to see the obvious distinction between gay marriage and pedophilia.

    What a coincidence! It just so happens that they ARE idiots.

  • steve84

    The correct term is “animus brief”

  • @13:

    I think in the instant case, the correct term might be “enema brief”.


    Can I lease the rights for “Two Douchebag White Supremacists”? I want to do an indie project with a friend and that sounds like a perfect name for us to go by for our duet’s debut album, “Self Awareness at the End of the World”.

  • Pingback: Ha! Ed Brayton finally gets sued | The American Patriot()