Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel makes a habit of saying stupid and crazy things, but this one may take the cake. Equality for gays and lesbians, you see, is incompatible with the Constitution because God gives us our rights and God is against gay people. Or something.
This tyranny of rights, this tyranny of the minority, and we’re not talking about racial minorities, neutral minorities, we’re talking about people who define their identity based upon sexually deviant behaviors and proclivities. This is a tyranny of sexually deviant rights and it’s by design to replace the enumerated Constitutional rights given by our Creator based upon the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God, these so-called rights violate the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God, and yes violate the expressed guarantees that we have to religious liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of association granted to us by the United States Constitution. The LGBT agenda and Constitutional rights cannot exist in harmony. At Liberty Counsel, we defend the Constitution.
Because, of course, God gives Christians the inalienable right to oppress gay people. Therefore, not allowing them to oppress gay people is a violation of their God-given rights.
22 comments
3 pings
Skip to comment form ↓
TX_secular
May 8, 2012 at 9:12 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
My brain actually hurts trying to follow that “logic.”
Marcus Ranum
May 8, 2012 at 9:12 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It’s like a wingnut version of euthyphro!
Modusoperandi
May 8, 2012 at 9:16 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
To be fair, Ed, the Declaration of Independence only says that men are created equal. After that Unpopular Minorities are on their own.
Wes
May 8, 2012 at 9:23 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Can we just define homophobia as a sexual deviation and be done with these people? Their views are definitely in the minority. And all they seem to care about is what the majority thinks. Until it doesn’t.
Gregory in Seattle
May 8, 2012 at 9:25 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
So… he is preaching the overthrow of the Constitution and its principles because his imaginary voices tell him they, and not it, actually run the country?
Why this man isn’t locked up in either prison for treason or in a mental facility for his psychosis is beyond me.
Taz
May 8, 2012 at 9:26 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
So the right to bear arms comes directly from god. As does the right not to quarter soldiers during peacetime.
Modusoperandi
May 8, 2012 at 9:30 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Marcus Ranum “…euthyphro!”
Gesundheit.
Taz “As does the right not to quarter soldiers during peacetime.”
It should be noted that, whether during war or peace, the soldiers weren’t too fond of getting chopped in to four parts anyway.
d cwilson
May 8, 2012 at 9:43 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
What a really strange and novel interpretation of inalienable rights. This has to be the first time in American history where people have argued that the mere existence of certain people is considered a violation of their religious rights. I can’t think of any other time where people have made this argument.
Slave owners may have argued that Africans were inferior to whites and therefore, are not entitled to the same rights, but they never argued that the mere existence of Africans was incompatitible with their religious freedom. Far from it, since their economy was dependent on the labor obtained from their slaves.
But today, we have people saying that, because two dudes are getting it on somewhere, their religious freedoms are being violated. Not because the government is preventing them from worshiping they way their choose or is censoring their speech, but from the mere fact that gays are not being locked up.
Amazing. Even though what two people do in the privacy of their own affects no one but themselves, they are violating other people’s religious rights. What’s next? Shall we exterminate all pigs and shellfish because certain religious groups feel the possibility that someone, somewhere might eat them violates their religious freedoms?
chisaihana5219
May 8, 2012 at 9:55 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“Laws of Nature and Nature’s God”?? I always thought that nature didn’t have a God. The Laws of Nature are based on the physical properties of the universe. Does he mean “Mother Nature”, the godess of pagans? If Nature has a god, then does nature worship it’s god or pray to it? Is my lawn worshiping some invisible sky god? Am I sinning when I mow down? If I kill the dandylions will I go to hell? Makes my head spin!
Mr Ed
May 8, 2012 at 10:04 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
we’re talking about people who define their identity based upon sexually deviant behaviors and proclivities.
Why is it that family values types seem to define marriage or the family as the act of intercourse. I wonder what kind of adult relationships they have when they seem to only think in terms of plug and socket.
sunsangnim
May 8, 2012 at 10:07 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
So God is the source of the rights in the US Constitution? Why did he take so long to reveal these ideas? You would think he would have given these constitutional rights to his Chosen People(TM) thousands of years ago. People were pretty religious in the Christian Dark Ages. Why didn’t he give them any of these rights? And if God wants to give us these rights, why doesn’t he run his kingdom that way? Before he sends me to hell for not believing in him, I’m going to demand a trial of my peers. Hell is a clear violation of the eighth amendment. When he reads your mind to uncover sinful thoughts, remind him that he’s violating the fourth amendment that he wrote. I know God gave the Bill of Rights to George Washington on stone tablets at Mt Sinai, because it says so in my Biblestitution.
Wow, I think I went off the deep end. I need some sleep.
dingojack
May 8, 2012 at 10:13 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“…about people who define their identity based upon sexually deviant behaviors and proclivities…”.
Except same-sex attravtion seems occur in stable numbers and over many species, particullar in higher primates like humans. Not ‘deviant’ then.
“… This is a tyranny of sexually deviant rights and it’s by design to replace the enumerated Constitutional rights given by our Creator based upon the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God, these so-called rights violate the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God…”
+ As noted earlier not deviant behaviour
+ Read the 9th Admentment moron
+ Evidence of creator required
+ “Nature’s God”? Sound a little like heretical deism to me, sure you’re a Real Christian(TM)?
+ See above
“…and yes violate the expressed guarantees that we have to religious liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of association granted to us by the United States Constitution”.
+ How eactly and specifically does it curtail religious freedom (does it you stop attending services, building churches and/or praying to the god(s) of your choice?). How does it curtail exactly and specifically your freedom of speech (does it render you dumb, prevent you from disagreeing with others and or does it make you forget how to write?). How exactly and specifically does is curtail freedom of association (do you forget who your alleged friends are, are you put under house arrest by the marriage equality police [you wish] and/or does it make you have a phobia of other bigots?)
+ Granted by the constitution? I thought they were granted by “Nature’s God”, or “Natural Law” or even “God”? You sounding positively pagan. Time to round up your ostensible co-relgionists, they love a nice auto da fe (as long as pitchforks and torches are involved)
Dingo
Skip White
May 8, 2012 at 10:19 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
So how long until Matt Barber ends up on a list of religious hypocrites for, let’s say, soliciting underage Filippino boys on Craigslist?
Michael Heath
May 8, 2012 at 10:25 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
chisaihana5219,
I suggest doing some enlightenment study. “The laws of nature and nature’s god” is both coherent, historical, and consistent with enlightenment thinking up through to at least the 19th century and consistent even with Spinoza’s god when trying to reconcile nature to the DofI. After that reference Staver’s logic and honesty break down; Staver lies when he claims homosexuality is not a part of nature – it most certainly is.
The Lorax
May 8, 2012 at 10:27 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
You win this round, sunsangnim. I think you were channeling The Daily Show and The Colbert Report at the same time.
+1 Internets for Biblestitution.
slc1
May 8, 2012 at 10:39 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Re chisaihana5219 @ #9
The term Nature’s God seems to be a Deist notion, according to several essays that can be found from a Google search. It certainly does not refer to the god described in the Hebrew and Christian scriptures.
kermit.
May 8, 2012 at 10:51 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“This tyranny of rights, this tyranny of the minority, and we’re not talking about racial minorities, neutral minorities, we’re talking about people who define their identity based upon sexually deviant behaviors and proclivities.”
Of course the rights specified in the Constitution were to protect the minorities from the tyranny of the majority. If the majority is the ultimate decider of right and wrong, then we only need a democracy and a constitution that defines the workings of the government. If a majority of voters vote for slavery (or gay bath houses on every corner), then there are no moral arguments against it, if the will of the people is
sacrosanct.
Also, he is – as all fundies do – describing sexual orientation or identification as a choice. I can choose to not sexually approach the hot young housewife from across the street, or even refrain from watching her when I’m in the garden, but I can’t decide by an act of will to find her unattractive.
This sort of thinking baffled me when I was a ten year-old Fundy myself. I thought I was stupid, but for this and a myriad of other reasons I eventually realized that all adults were insane.
The New Testament is quite clear that wrong desires are sinful. This makes sense from a Zen Buddhist viewpoint, if “sin” is thought to mean an attachment to the world which can be overcome by Zen practice, but to think of the mere desire as a misbehavior punishable by Big Daddy in the Sky is bizarre.
How do you overcome or resist temptation if the temptation itself is a sin? One is lost in an eternal circle of guilt, and introspection is best avoided…
MikeMa
May 8, 2012 at 11:26 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Am I right in thinking people can still pay real money to clown Barber to represent them in an American court? His constitution is dramatically different than the one I know to exist. His interpretation of law sounds like many dark age theocracies. I understand that is what he desires but his view contradicts the US constitution rather than supports it. Poor, deluded Matt.
eric
May 8, 2012 at 11:47 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@8: I think the argument de jure is that not being allowed to pass laws against sodomy etc. is the violation. As in: when the government removes my state’s/city’s/local community’s ability to self-rule without a good reason, its a violation. They save the ‘your mere existence is a violation of my rights’ argument for export to Africa. For now.
The ‘nature’s god’ reference is clearly Staver’s attempt to head off anyone pointing out that the founder’s mentions of God do not refer to his idea of God. Staver probably figures that by mentioning both in the same paragraph, he has given a cogent argument for them being the same.
rowanvt
May 8, 2012 at 12:32 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ooooo! It’s my favorite goal-post moving argument!
“It’s not natural/it’s against nature!”
*points out copious examples of homosexual activity/pairings in animals*
“We should be better than animals!”
John Hinkle
May 8, 2012 at 1:09 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Zero. You did not show your work. Please see me after class.
neonsequitur
May 8, 2012 at 2:20 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Matt Barber’s existence violates my right to live in a world without stupid people.
siti internet roma
May 8, 2012 at 11:02 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
siti internet roma…
[...]Wingnut Quote of the Week | Dispatches from the Culture Wars[...]…
Qaizer Saufi, qaizer sharing,
May 9, 2012 at 4:26 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Qaizer Saufi, qaizer sharing,…
[...]Wingnut Quote of the Week | Dispatches from the Culture Wars[...]…
Saale
May 12, 2012 at 6:13 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Saale…
[...]Wingnut Quote of the Week | Dispatches from the Culture Wars[...]…