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.