The name is familiar, but doesn't ring a bell. After a cursory overview of his Wikipedia page I didn't see anything that jumps out at me as disqualifying.
"The States should not be required to accept, as a matter of constitutional doctrine, that homosexual activity is harmless and does not expose both the individual and the public to deleterious spiritual and physical consequences."
As a matter of jurisprudence, I agree with that - in that the purpose of the statement is to say the US Constitution does not impose such a moral judgement upon the individual states.
I'm far more concerned with statements like:
> Contrary to the cliché so tritely tossed about in freshman poli-sci courses, the States can and must legislate morality.
and
> Even legislation that is largely symbolic and infrequently enforced (due to other salutary checks on government power, like the Fourth Amendment) has significant pedagogical value. Laws teach people what they should and should not do, based on the experiences of their elders.
FWIW, I'll also say that I strongly disagree with the amicus, on multiple grounds.
Thank you for reading it. My choice of quote wasn't the best, as i am not equipped to interpret the fine details correctly in entirety. However i am happy that my overall disagreement is shared.
And i agree, that while more subtle, the points you pointed out represent a far further reaching and far more dangerous misunderstanding of the purpose of law.
There are in my opinion many details like this that many voters were not aware of, either through deception, omission or just plain lack of time to research. And to be sure, there will be such details about Clinton.
However, on balance, i am confident that Trump and the people he surrounds himself with represent a much bigger danger to the lifelihood and health of innocent people than Clinton would've been, if only because the fact that such things are said publicly indicate that restraint is not something they bother with even for appearances.
She supported it in the past. She did also: At the very least make the effort to claim she does not any more, at the very least researched the words a person actually believing those things would use, and at the very least made the effort of claiming she would not repeat such.
If it's real, I'm ready to give her the benefit of the doubt.
If Pryor disawoved his previous actions in a similarly convincing manner, i would also give him the benefit of the doubt.
But right now he has made no such statements, leaving me to believe he both internally and externally still stands by them; and is thus at least down vis-a-vis Hillary on one count.
Also, do you support his nominee William Pryor?