Alliance Defense Fundies attack Article Hate for attacking Mittenfuhrer

[Ian David]

See prior post:

Anti-gay bigots blame Der Mittenfuhrer for legalizing gay marriage
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=158x10248


Get your popcorn...

It's time for an episode of Hate-filled bigoted fundies eating their own!

The following is an email from the Maoist anti-gay fag-hag bigot Brian Camenker at Article 8 Alliance:


From: MassResistance <[email protected]>

=== 1. Alliance Defense Fund lawyer in Arizona attacks MassResistance findings on Romney and marriage -- read the response and judge for yourself! ===

Since our emails began circulating among pro-family activists around the country charging that Gov. Romney started same-sex "marriage" in Massachusetts when he didn't have to, we knew it was a matter of time before the fireworks would begin. There's a lot at stake here, politically and emotionally.

Glen Lavy heads marriage litigation for the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF). Lavy and the ADF worked closely with Romney throughout the Goodridge episode, and were involved with some of the litigation surrounding it. Lavy has also written extensively on the subject, and has done related pro-marriage litigation in other states. ADF also did a lot of work on the language of the present VoteOnMarriage.org Constitutional Amendment. So it's reasonable to conclude that ADF has an interest in defending how things were handled by Romney, since they appear to have advised him during that time and did a portion of the legal work.

After seeing our email research and conclusions on this which we had sent to pro-family activists around the country, Lavy sent an email to Tom Shields, board member of Massachusetts Family Institute / VoteOnMarriage, which included a fairly scathing attack on our assessment of the situation. That email has since been widely distributed. Some of you may have seen it.

So we are publishing it, along with a response from two of the people involved in this project: John Haskins and Boston lawyer Robert Paine. Naturally, we would invite Attorney Lavy to respond to these rebuttals if he wishes. The more this gets discussed and critically examined, the better, we say!

READ THE EMAIL, THE CHARGES, AND REBUTTALS --
and judge for yourself:
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/lavy_email.html



Here's our original series of articles (on the MassResistance website):
"Gov. Romney started same-sex "marriage" in Massachusetts:"
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/index.html

=== 2. A message to our activists. . . ===

To our MassResistance activists:

Since our last general email, several people have asked us, "Why are you attacking Gov. Romney, who is on our side?" And a few people were so upset that they asked to be removed from our email list. Fair enough; we think it deserves an answer.

We want you to know that we didn't take this on lightly. It comes after many months of painstaking research, meetings, discussions, and soul searching. It comes after questioning people knowledgeable in many areas of constitutional law. The consensus is that this is for real.

This past May we sat in the Governor's offices in the State House with senior staff to begin to discuss these issues and allegations. But we were coldly dismissed. That was disappointing but not surprising. Romney, like the previous three Republican governors, has worked closely with homosexual activists but seems to consider pro-family conservatives as a foreign breed who tend to upset things.

Over the months, as more information was gathered more people got involved, this seemed to get bigger and bigger. What should we do? Why, at least, not put it out and let it stand or die on its own merits?

To be blunt, a lot of people on "our" side don't get it. We are in a severe constitutional crisis. But unfortunately, too many of our smart people, for whatever political and psychological reasons, don't want to talk about it, or deal with it in anything but a superficial way. Maybe they feel that if they really sat down and thought this through, they'd be afraid of what they'd find.

So a lot of good people have been busying themselves over the last two-dozen months supporting or opposing various constitutional amendments, calling legislators, testifying at public hearings, holding signs outside of the state house, and a hundred other things that they're told is "progress". Just "doing something" in the face of an overwhelming problem feels good and psychologically fulfilling. But what if it's not really solving the things that need to be solved?

So let's be more blunt: Our constitutional government has been taken captive by ideological zealots pushing a destructive social agenda that would not succeed through any legitimate process. A crisis like this calls for strong people in power to take bold action.

Instead, too many of our civic and religious leaders are content to pursue a solution that is politically expedient in the short run (where they can claim a "victory") but that ignores or even strengthens the real underlying evil that will continue to destroy us in the long run.

Moreover, far too many pro-family conservatives have a self-defeating habit of blindly following their political leaders (and the Republican Party in general) no matter badly they treat us, or how much they abuse our laws and Constitution. We're made to feel we should be grateful we're not being ruled by the opposition. So we tell ourselves we must never actually stand for principle and hold any "good guy's" feet to the fire. And where does that get us?

Another virus in the pro-family community is the idea that we must be "reasonable" -- rather than demand what's right -- and continually concede some ideological/principled ground while stepping back to draw a line yet farther back in the sand. When will we learn where that always leads?

We need to raise the bar for our "friends", not lower it.

In 2002, Mitt Romney ran for governor telling the press that the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage was "extreme" and that he wouldn't support it. He's also been on the record supporting both civil unions and domestic partnerships. But now, running for president, he's going around the country saying he's 100% against same-sex marriage and has done everything he can to stop it in Massachusetts.

So if for no other reason, his posturing and apparent lack of conviction on this important issue (and others) unless it was politically advantageous requires one to look at the record and hold it up to the light -- and examine just what he did during that critical time when the everything on the line.

The question shouldn't be, "Why are we doing this?" The question should be, "Why aren't others doing it?"