Cathie Adams Compares Supreme Court’s Freedom to Marry Ruling to Infamous Dred Scott Case

Cathie Adams, president of the far-right Texas Eagle Forum, is still ripping mad that gay people who love each other can get married. In Texas Eagle Forum’s October newsletter, Adams even argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in favor of the freedom to marry this past June was as wrong as the court’s 1973 abortion decision and its infamous Dred Scott decision in 1857. In the abortion case, the court essentially said women have a right to control their own bodies. In the Dred Scott case, the court infamously ruled that black people — whether slave or free — could not be U.S. citizens or hold the same rights as white people.

Adams writes that efforts in the Texas Legislature to pass a bill defying the Supreme Court on same-sex marriage failed because of opposition from the business lobby. She also criticizes Republican leaders:

“We also lacked support from Governor Greg Abbott, Lt. Governor Dan Patrick, and House Speaker Joe Straus. If the Republican leadership had stood against the impending overreach by the SCOTUS, then we’d have a good chance of calling the decision WRONG—just like Dred-Scott was wrong, and Roe vs. Wade was wrong.”

That the Texas Legislature could have really done anything to defy the Supreme Court’s marriage ruling is purely a fantasy promoted by the right. The fact is that Texas is bound by the court’s decisions.

In any case, right-wingers like Adams often compare any court decision they don’t like to the Roe abortion decision. But the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sanford decision? In that Supreme Court case, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney argued that the nation’s founders believed all black people were “beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”

Interestingly, Adams’ past rhetoric suggests she believes gay people are also beings of an inferior order. She essentially wanted the Supreme Court to affirm that view this past summer and continue to allow our nation’s laws to treat same-sex couples as inferior and second-class citizens.

Her article also argues — despite an abundance of research to the contrary — that same-sex parents are bad for children. To try backing up that point, she even relies on a “study” from the Family Research Council. The Southern Poverty Law Center rightly identifies the Family Research Council as an anti-gay hate group. So it’s not a surprise that a “study” from that group would argue against same-sex marriage.

It’s also not surprising that Cathie Adams would rely on a hate group for support. After all, birds of a feather…

This article was posted in these categories: Cathie Adams, marriage equality, Texas Eagle Forum, TFNEF. Bookmark the permalink. Follow comments with the RSS feed for this post.Trackbacks are closed, but you can Post a Comment.


  • Amazed says:

    The problem is they are making arbitrary decisions that they have no business making. They are to interpret the law not legislate from the bench.

    • Dan says:

      Ruling that certain laws are unconstitutional is not legislating from the bench. Recall that the court has also ruled that laws banning political spending by corporations are unconstitutional, but conservatives haven’t said that was an example of legislating from the bench (even if many Americans don’t agree with that ruling).

  • Beverly Margolis says:

    Thanks, Dan, for the URL I’ve been looking for. I’m a SPLC member, it is the best money I spend every month.
    It is scary that there are so many people who send death warnings. They have been the target of people who have tried to burn them out of their offices. I’ve seen the leaders of the organization my only regret is that I cannot give them more.

  • Beverly Margolis says:

    It upsets me that people think that SCOTUS came up with a new law to permit same-sex marriage. BALONEY! Nothing could be farther from the truth
    There is a pesky thing called the 14th Amendment. Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.; NO STATE SHALL MAE OR ENFORCE ANY LAW WHICH SHALL ABRIDGE THE PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES. nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    All that SCOTUS did was to amplify the part where states could not abridge or immunities of citizens of the United States.
    So there was no new law, only Congress can do that. But SCOTUS’ job is to check laws to see if they in line with the Constitution. Or, as with the 14th Amendment is still constitutional. It is. Only prejudicial people, particularly those hate groups who are as frightened of people who are not like them as a child is afraid of thunder.
    Yes, all hate groups are comprised of people who are stuck at around eight years old. Mommy, I’m scared. That man has black skin what should I do?
    Ditto with every other person who is not them.
    What astounds me is that all of the hate groups paint themselves as Christians. The last thing they are is Christian. They’re as bad as the Arabs who screams Allah Akbar. How they can behead innocent people and think that their god is pleased with cold blooded murder.
    ISIS came to be thanks to George W. Bush and his criminal gang.
    We murdered tens of thousands of innocent civilians who just wanted to live their lives and to be left alone. But in came the US and we murdered them. How could they not seek what they see as retribution?
    When will Americans understand that the Arab mind is not that of the West? They have always sought retribution, particularly for anyone or anything that they feel has harmed them. Some Arabs are still arguing about whose family stole whose goat 500 years ago.

  • Amazed says:

    Hey Dan,

    I will look at it this weekend. I am not a Family Research fan. Isn’t that the group that James Dobson started. It used to be Focus on the Family if I remember correctly.

    Also didn’t FRC also lift up that one family that had 19 kids and they were involved in some kind of shenanigans?

  • Amazed says:

    Why is everything a HATE group when they have disagreements over things?

    As far as the Supreme Court, We have an imperial judiciary branch.

    And one can’t argue for civil rights and then ask for Gov’t interference.

    • Dan says:

      The SPLC doesn’t call the Family Research Council a hate group because they have differences of opinion. They call FRC a hate group because that organization and its leaders demonize gay people with particularly vile, hateful rhetoric and claims. If you haven’t read SPLC’s take on the FRC, I encourage you to do so:

    • Charles says:

      The U.S. Supreme Court is imperial because the founding fathers made it that way—intentionally. It was designed to keep an eye on the Congress and the President—and the law in general. The U.S. Constitution did not establish a body to keep an eye on the high court. This is why their word is FINAL.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *