6th Circuit Ruling Patterned on White Supremacist Brief?

In a recent post I speculated whether Judge Jeffrey Sutton was a modern day segregationist.  Perhaps my shots at Sutton were closer to home than I realized.  A white supremacist group that filed an amicus curiae in the 6th Circuit case is ecstatic that Sutton seemingly adopted the hate group's argument in support of upholding same sex marriage bans.  And, of course, leave it to a Chimperator George W. Bush appointee to side with the argument of white supremacists. Here are  excerpts from the group's own website boasting about the argument swallowed by Sutton who needs to receive a set of KKK robes for his Christmas gift:

When vice is celebrated as virtue and the proponents of that which is Good are labeled political heretics by the System, it is only just and proper for one to be “bad” as far as the powers that be are concerned.   

In DeBoer v. Snyder, Texas Attorney Jason Van Dyke of the Van Dyke Law Firm, PLLC, and I, Michigan and Ohio Attorney Kyle Bristow of Bristow Law, PLLC, submitted what we jokingly refer to as an “animus curiae brief” in which we articulated why the Western Legal Tradition and American history evince that there is no constitutional or natural law right for homosexuals to marry one another.  Although Schuette opined that our amicus brief should only be used to “line a birdcage” by the Sixth Circuit since it did not mince words by employing the System’s politically correct language or ideals, the judges disagreed with him:  our brief was not only accepted and considered by the Court, but the position we articulated was in effect adopted by the federal appellate judges since they saw fit to rule 2-1 that Michigan’s ban on homosexual marriage is constitutional.

Did the Sixth Circuit consider the amicus brief of us two villain lawyers and bad guy Michigan limited liability company?  Judge Jeffrey Sutton, who wrote the majority opinion, which was joined by Judge Deborah Cook, cited Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972) in the opinion, and then followed it up by citing Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332 (1975)—which were both cited in our brief in the same manner as the Sixth Circuit cited them.

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?

Given the thousands of years that slavery was legal and an accepted institution, one can only assume that Sutton would up hold that institution as well.   Oh, and what about antisemitism?  That was acceptable too for centuries and in Poland and Russia pogroms were government sanctioned. Under Sutton's rational, that must be perfectly fine as well.  Disgusting!