The Champions of Injustice and our ‘Animus Curiae’ Brief

The State Bar of Michigan awarded four attorneys their allegedly prestigious “Champion of Justice Award” this year for convincing a federal judge to overturn Michigan’s ban on homosexual marriage, which resulted in an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit being filed by Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette. To be awarded this purported honor, the State Bar of Michigan reports that one must be a Michigan lawyer for at least ten years, have “integrity and adherence to the highest principles and traditions of the legal profession,” exhibit “superior professional competence,” and demonstrate “an extraordinary professional accomplishment that benefits the nation, the state, or the local community in which the lawyer or judge lives.”

I pondered the other day, “If the State Bar of Michigan decrees these lawyers to be ‘Champions of Justice’ for promoting homosexual marriage by way of their legal work, does this mean that I am a ‘Champion of Injustice’ for having opposed them via the submission of an amicus curiae brief?” My co-counsel simply answered “LOL” when I presented this question to him by text message. (I suspect “LOL”—which stands for “laughing out loud”—was texted back to me, because the Dr. Evil “mwahahahaha, mwahahahaha” cackle would have been too time-consuming to type out on a cellular phone and exchange back and forth with exponentially increasing vigor.)

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 The Jaguar television ads which depict villains driving luxury vehicles who proudly proclaim “It’s good to be bad” are right when it comes to modernity. Recently, we bad guys won a victory for traditional marriage, because as was observed by Lord Dark Helmet in Spaceballs, “Evil will always triumph, because good is dumb.”

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.

Although the Left disparaged the Traditionalist Youth Network, LLC, for arguing for tradition and invoking the judicial philosophy of originalism, the Sixth Circuit invoked originalism—they called it “original meaning”—and stated rather overtly, “Tradition reinforces the point.” 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?

We argued that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees rights “so long as those rights are deeply rooted in history and tradition,” and Judge Sutton wrote that “the test is whether the right is ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition[.]’” Fancy that!

The ideals of the late Michigan attorney and philosopher Francis Parker Yockey were palpable in our amicus brief, because the brief directly took on the “Culture Distorter.” The lesson to be learned from this case—which is more important that the Sixth Circuit’s ruling itself—is that when right-wing nationalists seriously and fiercely defend their philosophy, they can win. The dynamism of the Faustian Soul that beats in the hearts of the Men of the West will not be stilled by the degenerate totalitarianism of the modern Left.

The Western Legal Tradition is a product of thousands of years of jurisprudence created by our Germanic, English, Roman, and Byzantine forefathers, and it is ours to protect and cherish—or it will die as our nations are dying due to a combination of apathy and liberalism.

To borrow a quip from the conclusion of our amicus brief, “It is high time for the mockery of our ancient and traditional European institutions and customs to end.”

Kyle Bristow, Esq.
Kyle Bristow, Esq.

Kyle Bristow is an attorney licensed to practice law in Michigan and Ohio and has filed two amicus curiae briefs on behalf of the Traditionalist Youth Network, LLC: Brief of Traditionalist Youth Network, LLC, as Amici Supporting the Appellants, DeBoer v. Snyder, __ F.3d __ (6th Cir. 2014) (No. 14-1341) and Brief of Traditionalist Youth Network, LLC, as Amici Supporting the Appellants, Kolbe v. O’Malley, __ F.3d __ (4th Cir. 2015) (No. 14-1945). His website may be viewed at