Words of Wisdom from Civil Rights Leader Kevin Smith

“When you change the definition of marriage to any two persons, you are making the distinction men and women are the same in every way,” Smith said. “That’s undeniably not true from a biological or social standpoint.

“You’re also saying that you don’t need a mother and father as the ideal way to raise children. This goes against common sense and it goes against social science. The other side wants to say this is about discrimination, but there’s already discrimination built into marriage. You can’t marry your cousin, you can’t marry your cousin’s sister, you can have polygamy, and on and on. The whole issue runs hollow if you scratch below the surface.”

His appointment by the US Commission on Civil Rights makes so much sense now!

But seriously: if you find this appointment as jaw-droppingly insulting to the very concept of civil rights as I do, please head over to Granite State Progress, which has an action item up.

, ,

  • Dean Barker

    to spread the word on this nationally too.

    And so should you!

  • Dartmouth Dem

    Go easy on him, Dean.  If this audio link is any indication, Mr. Smith will add tremendous intellectual energy to the Commission.  (He can lie, distort, and rhyme — all at the same time!)

    http://www.granitegrok.com/Aud

    • Dean Barker

      A song is worth a 1000 words, but it doesn’t say Kevin Smith anywhere in it.

      • Dean Barker
  • fake consultant

    …but just an observation based on legal opinions i’m reviewing for an upcoming story:

    courts note over and over again that marriage is designed to advance procreation.

    even in the instance of opening marriage to interracial couples the supreme court made a point to observe that the state had no interest in preventing the fundamental right to conceive children, as opposed to, say, the fundamental right of free association or racial equality.

    if you view these comments through that “lens” you can see where his thinking might have come from…and to me it’s worrying, as it suggests that obama administration will continue to ahdere to that line of thought.

  • hannah

    participation in governing (voting, holding office, serving on juries, formulating laws, etc.)  The right to associate and to reproduce are human rights.  Reference to human rights in the Bill of Rights is an obfuscation, taking our attention away from the fact that the Constitution is all about limiting, restricting and setting obligations for our agents of government–one of the primary ones being to meet those obligations without discrimination.
    Conservatives would prefer to believe that the Constitution prescribes and proscribes the behavior of every person and assigns rewards and punishments as a secular, real-time and more effective alternative to religious injunctions.  From their perspective, persons whose behavior is consistent with the standards set by (mainly Christian) religion need not be concerned with or follow the secular standards of the state because their behavior is bound to be exemplary.  That’s why the religious are exempt from secular control.

    If courts are finding that “marriage is designed to advance procreation,” then that’s largely an after-the fact conclusion probably intended to justify various social benefits for which married people qualify.  If marriage had any effect on procreation, then the fact that only 41% of American adults are married would explain why procreation has been significantly reduced, which it hasn’t.

    Mr. Smith may well be disappointed when he discovers the limited arena in which a civil rights commission opines.

    • fake consultant

      …that there is also the question of heterosexual and childless married couples.

      would it be legally defensible to deny those couples all the benefits of couples with children in order to encourage procreation?

      if the answer is no, then there seems to be an issue of inequality under law that might deserve to be addressed as an infringement upon a fundamental right (the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause is presumably invoked here), which might render moot the procreation issue raised in loving v virginia, et al.

  • Michael Marsh

    … both with the appointment, and by their perception that anyone who thinks Mr. Smith is unqualified is intolerant. This from a Mr. Tom DeRosa:

    Congratulations to Kevin Smith, Director of CPR, who last week was appointed to US Commission on Civil Rights NH Advisory Board. The “tolerant” left can not fathom that someone who does not share their opinions has been appointed to such a commission. This is yet another sign of the hypocrisy with which the left lives. They claim to be the tolerant party and wish to paint Republicans and those on the right as the intolerant ones but time and again their true colors shine through and they reveal for all to see their anger for those who disagree with them.

    I scratched my head about this one. Am I mad simply because Smith was appointed and I disagree with him?  And the answer is: hell no! There are plenty of people who ccould have been appointed to the Civil Rights Commissionthat I would have disagreed with politically, and I wouldn’t have cared. It is after all, supposed to be about diversity, so you want as many experiences and viewpoints as possible.

    I’m mad because Smith is the poster child of intolerance. It’s what he is all about- spreading the word that there must not be equal treatment for all NH citizens, else we might offend “traditional values”. He believes “separate but equal” is both possible and fair.  That they are putting him on a commission whose job it is to be a watchguard for civil rights when he is a spokesman against them makes a mockery of the commission. It’s be like putting a bank robber on the Police Review Board.

    So my objection is not because I am intolerant of other views, but because I want to see the commission be able to do its job. Whoever appointed Smith to the commission has just the opposite goal- he or she wants to give haters a pass.  

  • beverlywoods

    Kevin Smith is director of “Cornerstone Policy Research.” This organization boasts about its recent illegal robocalling to every household in NH to deliver a “push poll” against marriage equality.

    Appointing Mr. Smith is worse than merely appointing someone who does not fully support civil rights for all citizens. Mr. Smith makes his living marketing campaigns to deny people civil rights. For him it’s not just a hobby – it’s a full-time job. He is not just a consumer of bigotry and hatred; he is building a career on the selling of bigotry, hatred and misinformation.

    I am requesting that you remove him immediately from any position with the Civil Rights Advisory Committee.

    Thank you.

  • kite

    Specifically, does the appointing body have the right to un-appoint somebody?  That is not always the case.

Site maintenance and hosting by Hoeferweb