On the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) blog, which really should be named the NOHGP (National Organization Hating Gay People), William Duncan offers what is terms “legal analysis,” but which is actually just sarcastic snarkiness. Nothing either legal or analytical about it.

For those interested, the “Heightened Scrutiny Clause” is next to the “Right to Government Funded Healthcare Clause” in the Constitution. Of course, all but one of the federal circuits and the U.S. Supreme Court have used “rational basis” rather than heightened scrutiny for sexual orientation classifications, but peer pressure is strong and in this case appears to have trumped precedent and normal constitutional analysis.

No matter if you agree or disagree with Same-sex marriage, the legal rulings are all important, and a real analysis could help big time.NOM doesn’t really care however for analysis. This is a fundraising goldmine for them, and their purpose is to paint all judges are conviction less hacks who bend to peer pressure as opposed to apply the law as they see it.

Truly this is un-American, in that their goal is to undermine the judicial branch of government, and their tactics reek of pure bull bully behavior. If you can’t make a plausible case for your side, then resort to name calling, and belittling.

My analysis f this is that it bodes very well for those who support Marriage Equality. At no level of the court proceedings have the proponents of the anti-gay effort been able to lay out a factual case. The case continues to move up through the courts as it should, assuring that all parties are given their rights to appeal, but when this is the best they can muster and try and call it legal analysis, there is a problem for their side for sure.

via William Duncan’s Legal Analysis of Latest DOMA Challenge | NOM Blog.