White Supremacists Applaud Sixth Circuit For Using Their Anti-Gay Arguments

Back in March, I reported that the Traditional Youth Network, a white supremacist group, had filed an amicus brief with the Sixth Circuit Court in support of Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage. Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette, who is defending the ban, was put in the uncomfortable position of denouncing a brief in support of his case, saying that the group's message should be used "to line a birdcage." On Friday, Kyle Bristow, who filed the brief, applauded the Sixth Circuit's ruling, noting that Judge Jeffrey Sutton's ruling had used much of the same language as his brief.

Although the Left disparaged the Traditionalist Youth Network, LLC, for arguing for tradition and invoking the judicial philosophy of originalism, the Sixth Circuit invoked originalism—they called it “original meaning”—and stated rather overtly, “Tradition reinforces the point.” Judge Sutton also referred to “thousands of years of adherence to the traditional definition of marriage” in his written opinion, which echoes the sentiment espoused within our brief: “[T]he Western and American legal traditions have proscribed sodomy—much less same-sex marriage—for thousands and hundreds of years, respectively.” Not surprisingly, Judge Sutton mentioned the importance of tradition in the very first paragraph of his lengthy written opinion: “[M]arriage has long been a social institution defined by relationships between men and women. So long defined, the tradition is measured in millennia, not centuries or decades. So widely shared, the tradition until recently had been adopted by all governments and major religions of the world.” Also, our brief pointed out that sexual deviants with proclivities stranger than those even of homosexuals could demand the “right” to marry if the Court ruled that states cannot constitutionally regulate marriage, and the liberals mocked us for making the “slippery slope argument.” Well, Judge Sutton agrees with us, which is evinced by what he opined in his opinion: “If it is constitutionally irrational to stand by the man-woman definition of marriage, it must be constitutionally irrational to stand by the monogamous definition of marriage.” How do you liberals like them apples?

The Southern Poverty Law Center has long been tracking the group and has written about their Michigan brief.  (Tipped by JMG reader Jeremy)