human rights campaign logo Profiles in Hypocrisy: Forsaking Due Process When ConvenientIt’s amazing how quickly people who lecture the American public about rights and freedom abandon such causes in the name of their own political agenda. A great case in point would have to be the Human Rights Campaign, a large homosexual advocacy group already renown in some circles for lying about their membership numbers.

Nowadays they are using their political muscle to intimidate law firms that take up the cause of the Defense of Marriage Act, a piece of federal legislation defining marriage as being between one man and one woman which earned bipartisan support and was signed into law by a Democratic President.

These smear tactics resulted in the law firm defending DOMA dropping its support. Paul Clement, the attorney who is defending the federal legislation in court, has continued the fight despite the measures by the HRC. This is one of the many things the HRC has been able to do because mainstream media seldom will allow criticism of homosexual advocacy organizations to become major news.

Breaking from this fold was an opinion columnist for the Washington Post. Ruth Marcus, a writer who supports overturning DOMA, nevertheless had this to say about the HRC’s bully mentality:

“In the case of King & Spalding, the Atlanta firm that abruptly reneged on its commitment to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, the pummeling is entirely deserved. But the bigger culprit is the Human Rights Campaign, the gay rights group that orchestrated the ugly pressure tactics against King & Spalding.”

“I want to see DOMA struck down — after the courts hear the best possible argument in its defense,” concluded Marcus.

The HRC deciding that their ideological opponents do not deserve the same decent legal representation as the homosexual community is a hypocrisy only surpassed by the actions of the American Civil Liberties Union. Like the HRC, the ACLU supports removal of any legal defense for DOMA. It was the ACLU who chastised the House of Representatives for its decision to continue to defend the federal law after the Department of Justice opted against doing so.

“It is mind-boggling that of all of the priorities currently before Congress, the Speaker has chosen to defend this unconstitutional law,” said James Esseks, Director of the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Project.

For the ACLU to say neither the Justice Department nor Congress nor anyone else should defend DOMA is quite amusing given all the things they believe should be defended in court. This is the same organization who came to the aid of American Nazis who wanted to rally in a Jewish community that included people who survived the Holocaust.  This is also the same organization who defended NAMBLA, a group that advocated pedophile behavior. On the Frequently Asked Questions section of their website, they even try to rationalize this decision:

“The ACLU of Massachusetts’ represented members of NAMBLA because, while the ACLU does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children, we do advocate robust freedom of speech. This lawsuit struck at the heart of the First Amendment. It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something people find reasonable. The defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people reject.”

It’s in the fundamentals of the ACLU’s credo that despicable things should be given their day in court. They compare their actions to John Adams, Founding Father and former president who nevertheless served as the lawyer for the British soldiers who committed the Boston Massacre. This almost amiable reasoning also must mean the ACLU believes that soldiers who kill civilians should be given a legal defense as well.

Maybe Esseks should research the history and views of his organization a little more before uttering another word about what deserves to be defended in our system of justice and what does not, least of all when representing a major organization like the ACLU. Combining the views of Esseks with that of his comrades, it can be said the ACLU is outraged when civilian-killing British redcoats, pedophilia, possible terrorists, and Neo-Nazism do not receive the benefit of law, but angered when people who support defining marriage as being between a man and a woman do receive the benefit of law. Outrage loses its potency when people realize its selectivity.

 Profiles in Hypocrisy: Forsaking Due Process When Convenient

About the author

wrote 20 articles on this blog.

Michael Gryboski was born and raised in Alexandria, Virginia, making him one of the few people living in Northern Virginia who’s actually from Northern Virginia. He earned a bachelor of arts in history with a minor in psychology from George Mason University. A writer aspiring to greatness, Michael’s work can be found on numerous websites. Michael would rather be correct than widely accepted.

Previous Post:
Next Post:

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply