Is NOM lying to you (again)?

NOM isn’t the most truthful bunch on the planet.  And it’s almost sad, because their lapses are so damn easy to spot.  Here’s their expert Jennifer Roback Morse, blogging just before the appeal hearing started.  She’s saying our star attorneys, Olson and Boies, had a responsibility during the trail to explain why previous federal precedents (against marriage equality) didn’t apply to their case:

Olsen and Boies didn’t do that. Judge Walker didn’t do that. They didn’t even mention Baker v Nelson, Adams v Howerton and a host of state and district court rulings around the country.

Baker v Nelson is a case from 1972:  the Supreme Court left in place a lower-court verdict denying same-sex marriage rights.  Our opponents invoke Baker to say Judge Walker had no business taking the current case in the first place, and his disregard for Baker is proof of his pro-gay bias.

Now here’s Morse advancing that claim, saying Walker, Olson, and Boise didn’t even mention Baker.

True?

Actually, no.  I knew Morse was wrong, so I googled Baker Nelson Judge Walker.  Here’s what I found in Judge Walker’s ruling against our opponents’ motion for summary judgment:

Page Reference to Baker v Nelson
7 – 8 Judge Walker brings up Baker, and Cooper (the other side’s attorney) acknowledges this is the only case that might offer complete grounds for dismissing the complaint
9 Cooper starts talking about Baker but get sidetracked.
17 Judge Walker brings the court’s attention back to Baker. And Cooper gets sidetracked again.
34 – 38 Judge Walker brings the court’s attention back to Baker again. Cooper finally stays on track and makes his points.
40 – 43 Judge Walker asks Olson (one of our attorneys) to address Baker. Olson does so.
59 Olson addresses Baker again without being prompted.
73 Judge Walker mentions Baker in his decision not to dismiss the case in summary judgment.
75 – 79 Judge Walker explains why he does not find Baker to be binding in this case.
90 Judge Walker officially declares Baker to be insufficient grounds to dismiss the case.

Not only does Judge Walker mention Baker, he repeatedly brings it up and asks both sides to comment on it.  Baker comes up in the closing arguments, too (page 2986), when Walker asks Olson about Baker and Olson responds.

Here’s a word of advice to Morse, though:  when you falsely accuse someone of egregious misdeeds, you only end up convicting yourself.

One last note:  I merely wondered whether Morse is lying because there is another explanation.  Perhaps she merely devoted a blog entry to something so untrue — not just untrue, but easy to check on, as well — because she lacks basic knowledge and research skills.  I wouldn’t be surprised.  Apart from Maggie Gallagher herself, the NOM team strikes me a bunch of Keystone Kops.  When she reviews the troops, I imagine poor Maggie spends a lot of her time doing face palms — do you think?

Image from dancerher at deviantart.com.

Share:
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • email
  • Reddit

9 comments to Is NOM lying to you (again)?

  • 1
    tavdy79 says:

    “When she reviews the troops, I imagine poor Maggie spends a lot of her time doing face palms — do you think?”

    Ummm, no actually – because if I was a member of the Quorum of Twelve, the idiocy of choosing her and Brian Brown to run our front org would have me facepalming so fast and so frequently my face would be one big bruise.

    Also, these days I think you’d save time by not looking for instances where NOM is lying, and instead look for instances where they’re telling the truth.

  • 2
    Bonefish says:

    ^^^ Well, that and the idiocy of opposing marriage equality to begin with.  I just don’t think you can find a smart homophobe.
     
    If you go to court and your top experts– your best and brightest– argue that we have to ban gay marriage because straight people somtimes accidentally have kids and so they need to get married, chances are you’re not the brightest bunch.
     
    I mean, if “marriage” were some kind of food and the crops were running out or something, then maybe, but…

  • 3
    Ben in Argentina for the Moment says:

    That was the argument the supreme court of new york used. Didn´t make any sense then, doesn´t make any now.

  • 4
    Christopher Mongeau says:

    “Again”? Doesn’t that imply there was a time they stopped lying?

  • 5
    Jason D says:

    Silly Morse!  When the supreme court leaves a lower-court ruling in place that’s NOT the same as the supreme court deciding against a case.

  • 6
    Wade@MacMorrighan.Net says:

    This makes me all warm and fuzzy inside.  Thanks Rob!  Gods, I would love an hour to tell both Morse and Gallagher the *real* history of Marriange, how their views are based on wishful thinking and misrepresentations of the historical & anthropological records, and how we have been a part of marriage in every culture the whole time for as long as the human race has been on Earth!

  • 7
    classic baggeronics says:

    when i read this (in print), Gallagher’s series of logically self-defeating paragraphs had me laughing. http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-08-05/opinion/22206017_1_same-sex-marriage-gay-marriage-judge-walker

  • 8

    […] Roback Morse, NOM’s resident intellectual, dishonestly claims Judge Walker and attorneys Olsen and Boies “didn’t even mention [anti-gay […]

  • 9

    […] Roback Morse, NOM’s resident intellectual, dishonestly claims Judge Walker and attorneys Olsen and Boies “didn’t even mention [anti-gay […]

Leave a Reply

 

 

 

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>