Reisman and Liberty Counsel File Weird Brief in Marriage Cases

Just when you think the briefs filed in the Supreme Court same-sex marriage cases can’t get any weirder or irrelevant, think again. Liberty Counsel has now filed a brief on behalf of Judith Reisman, an anti-gay, Puritan crackpot who thinks porn creates brain-rotting “erototoxins” in viewers. And this is truly one of the most bizarre legal briefs I’ve ever read.

Virtually the entire brief consists of Reisman’s typical rants against the work of Alfred Kinsey. Why would that be in any way relevant to the legal questions in this case? Hell if I know. Here’s the weak attempt at a link:

The fundamental societal transformation reached this Court in 2003 when, relying upon Kinsey-inspired

changes in law and policy, this Court decriminalized same-sex sodomy in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).

Now this Court is being asked to again use aberrant research created by aberrant researchers based on the sexual abuse of hundreds of children to make fundamental changes to American law—this time to demolish natural marriage. This Court should not permit the institution of marriage to become the latest victim of the Kinseyan model of American society.

Uh, okay. Except this case has nothing whatsoever to do with Kinsey’s research. None of the parties to the cases being heard cite Kinsey in any way to support their legal arguments. Search the brief for the petitioners in the case for Kinsey and you’ll come up empty. They might as well have filled up this brief with statistics about the impact of the designated hitter on the earned run averages of opposing pitches in the American League.

Next they argue that, “Marriage was not created by law and cannot be redefined by law.” Seriously? Of course it’s created by law. You can look them up in the compiled laws of each state and the federal government. And of course it can be redefined by law. What do they think the Supreme Court did in Loving v Virginia? They redefined marriage by changing the law. This is just a baffling argument. Now their churches are, of course, free to continue to define it any way they want as a matter of religious doctrine, but the laws governing marriage can, do, and have changed.

Did I mention that this brief was written by Mat Staver, the dumbest lawyer in America not named Mat Staver? Maybe his brain is rotting from all those “erototoxins” that don’t actually exist.

""Dennis Moore, Dennis MooreRiding cross the swardDennis Moore, Dennis MooreAnd his horse Concord.Steals from the ..."

Moore’s Nutty Lawyer
"Hey Mark - does that mean a hurricane's gonna hit Western Sydney now they voted ..."

Taylor: The Illuminati Sent the Hurricanes ..."
"Next week's headline:Hannity backs down on back down from back down from back down from ..."

Surprise! Hannity Backed Off His Backing ..."
"The irony is her and people like her put children and everyone else in danger ..."

Crokin: God Will Reward My Crackpottery

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Chiroptera

    …this time to demolish natural marriage.>/i>

    I’m pretty sure that natural marriage will survive just fine even without Christian bakers providing wedding cakes.

  • StevoR

    Mat Staver, the dumbest lawyer in America not named Mat Staver?

    Um, wot? Mat Staver is named Mat Staver. perhaps you meant Klayman or somebody else?

  • brucegee1962

    Mat Staver, the dumbest lawyer in America not named Mat Staver

    Whatever other negative titles he may deserve, I’m pretty sure he doesn’t deserve this one.

    My brain hurts from thinking about that too much. I’m going to go lie down.

  • StevoR

    this time to demolish natural marriage.

    I don’t suppose he actually explained *how* equal marriage will demolish hetero marriages?

  • D. C. Sessions

    If these people actually thought that “marriage” was independent of “law” they would file briefs challenging the Court’s jurisdiction in the case.

    That, at least, would have some coherence.

  • D. C. Sessions

    For those giving Ed static on the boilerplate regarding Staver, I have two words and one more:

    “kidney stones”


    If you’ve never passed one, shut up.

  • Chiroptera

    Didn’t the law redefine marriage about 100 years ago when it was changed to remove the “permanent until death except in the case of adultery” part?

    (Oh and the part about “the husband owns all the stuff.”)

  • StevoR

    Off topic, sorry, but does anyone know what’s happened to Stephen “DarkSyde”Andrew of the Zingularity blog? He hasn’t posted anything new in over a month now – I hope he’s okay.

  • StevoR

    @7. Chiroptera : There was also the change in law on spousal rape actually being a crime too wasn’t there – and wasn’t that scarily relatively recent? (Like around the 1950’s~ish?)

  • StevoR

    Plus, of course, interracial marriage being made legal too!

  • Modusoperandi

    Seriously? Of course it’s created by law.

    No. God created it. It’s right there in Genesis, where He provided Adam and Eve with the right to joint-file tax returns, visit each other in the hospital and to not have to testify against the other in court.

  • dingojack

    Of course I’ve passed a kidney stone — it was going about 25 mph in the overtaking lane – and it was wearing a terry-towelling hat! Talk about road-rage! (True story).



    Commiserations Ed, get well soon.

  • John Pieret

    I love how they spend so much time attacking Lawrence v. Texas as being based on bad science. That is certain to influence Justice Kennedy … in a way they didn’t intend. This was the nicest thing Reisman and Staver could have done for LGBT people.

  • hunter

    The amicus briefs being filed in these cases are probably doing more to influence the Court toward marriage equality than anything the appellants could file. This is one of the wackier ones, but Reisman has a long history of wacky. (Her doctorate is, ironically enough, in Communications.)

  • dingojack

    It doesn’t begin with “Hi I’m Judith Reisman…” by any chance?


  • Trebuchet

    Ed should just go with “Matt Klayman, the dumbest lawyer not named Larry Staver.” Of course, he could always toss Andy Schlaffley in there as well.

  • colnago80

    Is Orly Taitz no longer “practicing” law?

  • marcus

    @ ^ It probably has something to do with the suit that Orly Taitz brought against Ed.

  • colnago80

    According to Wiki, Dr. Reisman seems to have an obsession with the late Albert Kinsey, accusing him of being a pedophile among other claims. Fortunately for her, she made the accusations, for which she produced not a jot or a tittle of evidence, after he died, thus avoiding any possible libel suit (in most states, the dead can’t be libeled).

  • Pierce R. Butler

    colnago80 @ # 19: … the late Albert Kinsey…

    Far be it from me to claim any limits on Reisman’s fetishes, but sfaik the only hate-on she’s expressed targets the lamented Dr. Alfred C. Kinsey.

  • eric

    who thinks porn creates brain-rotting “erototoxins” in viewers.

    Ahhh…but are they heterototoxins or homototoxins? Because as we all know, hetertotoxins are beautiful normal things that Paul spoke warmingly about in the New Testament, while homototoxins are evil pure and simple by way of the 8th dimension..

  • anubisprime

    Judith gotta bug up her ass, which is ironic whichever way it is considered, about Kinsey and his famous sexual behavior reports from 1948 male sexuality and 1953 female sexuality.

    Missy is all a doo dah cos she don’t like ’em!…who better to off load to then the Supreme Court?…makes perfect sense…sorta!

  • Rick Pikul

    @StevoR #9


    For the US try starting in the 1970s and the criminalization of marital rape isn’t quite done yet. Several states still allow you to rape your wife provided you don’t use force or threats to overcome resistance, South Carolina only counts it as rape if aggravated force is used and it is reported within 30 days.

    By 1960, the only places where marital rape was a crime were behind the Iron Curtain.

  • colnago80

    Re Butler @ #20

    Alfred it is. My bad.

  • lofgren

    In the view of fundies, everything sexuality-related that they don’t like is Kinsey-based in the same way that everything biology-related is Darwin-based. Just as they can disprove evolution by finding faults in Origin of the Species, they can disprove homosexuality by finding faults with Kinsey’s research.

  • felidae

    I think “erototoxins” build up when you don’t get laid enough and they rot your brain–pretty obvious what the problem is in Judith’s case

  • Kermit Sansoo

    lofgren sez: Just as they can disprove evolution by finding faults in Origin of the Species, they can disprove homosexuality by finding faults with Kinsey’s research.


    More stupidly, they think they can discredit any scientific model(1) by demonstrating that the prophet founder was morally corrupt. Hence, “accusations” that Darwin was a racist, hunted dogs(2), was sexually perverted, etc. They do not understand the very concept of a reality that doesn’t care what we think. For them, reality is a social construct, and the universe is inherently moral. Moral, of course, meaning obeying God’s whims commands. The universe is as it is because Sky Daddy wants it that way. It gets bad because he gets mad when we are bad, i.e., when we disobey. See? Everything explained! And all that scientifical stuff is just an attempt to pretend that God doesn’t exist so that we atheists can get all the cool girls and boys naked and sleep late on Sundays.


    Trying to disprove science using science is just playing the godless science game anyway. It can only be definitively disproved using the bible and righteous moral arguments. Everyone knows that.



    (1) Especially Darwin’s – there hasn’t been any research in that field in the last 160 years, has there?

    (2) Sigh. He once wrote that, as a lad, he liked to go dog hunting. So naturally, these loons think…

  • M can help you with that.

    brain-rotting erototoxins

    Dibs on the band name.