Crampton: Civil Disobedience if SCOTUS Overturns DOMA


Steve Crampton of Liberty Counsel says that if the Supreme Court strikes down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, “in the spirit of Martin Luther King, Jr, it may be the time for peaceful civil disobedience when it comes to the fundamental deconstruction of our most fundamental institutions.” Uh, civil disobedience against what, exactly? Are you going to protest outside same-sex marriage ceremonies? Burn pictures of Elton John?

Comments

  1. roggg says

    Uh, civil disobedience against what, exactly?

    They will all come together and refuse to get gay married. Duh!

  2. Randomfactor says

    Why, the answer is as obvious as the Selma bus boycott: True Christians MUST start living together in sin rather than submit to that gay-tainted “marriage.” NO more church weddings. NO more marriage licenses.

    God would want it that way.

  3. says

    They are going to peaceably refuse to get married to a person of the same sex … because, of course, overturning DOMA will force everyone into a gay marriage.

  4. Doug Little says

    Maybe they can all go on hunger strikes, no scratch that, Chick-fil-a would go out of business and we couldn’t have that.

  5. blf says

    …overturning DOMA will force everyone into a gay marriage.

    I thought that — forced into a gay marriage — happened if background checks or a license is required to own an assault rifle.

  6. Taz says

    I also oppose “counterfeit same sex marriage”. I want the real thing.

    He’s probably talking about stuff like clerks refusing to issue marriage licenses. He’s not bright enough to realize that when government officials refuse to obey the lay it’s not civil disobedience, it’s something else.

  7. kantalope says

    I think they should go for a classic cross-burning! And since we all know that teh-gay comes with an unrivaled fashion sense, they can show their anti-fashion by wearing something formless…I don’t know, something like a bedsheet. To avoid the new Gaystapo – probably best to cover their faces with masks…no, hoods (NOT hoodies, oh no!) but hoods would work.

    Yup I can see their protests coming together quite easily now.

    Although if they go for the more edgy – fornicating without any kind of marriage (take that marriage!) – I might just join in, but just as a protest (I don’t support your message but will support your right to message) solidarity kind of thing.

  8. eamick says

    Burn pictures of Elton John?

    Burning copies of “Candle in the Wind” would be more likely to sway people to their cause.

  9. says

    Since they seem to believe that the only legitimate reason for marriage is precreation, maybe they’ll refuse to breed.

    One can only hope.

  10. thisisaturingtest says

    It strikes me how often these folks are using “fundamental” as a new buzz-word for something they just can’t explain or even identify with any specificity (and even so, using it twice in one short sentence seems a little overwrought). As Ed has said here, they can’t ever give even one example of how exactly allowing a gay marriage has led to destroying a straight marriage; and, since general cases are built of specific ones, if you can’t cite a specific case, then you can’t build a general one.

  11. whheydt says

    If it were a ruling on the Prop. 8 case that they’d be protesting, I could see some of the responses people have posted. But DOMA Sect. 3? Not so much…

    What they’d need to do is protest the action of the IRS (permitting joint tax filing), SSA (spouse and survivors benefits), hospitals (spousal visitation rights) and the like…all the government granted privileges that come with a marriage license.

  12. Scr... Archivist says

    I can think of one way to protest this: have a church-marriage without a license. Some opposite-sex couple could have a big, traditional wedding officiated by a sympathetic minister in a church that believes that God trumps government, especially in a fundamental institution that He invented. It would be a retreat into purity, a way to distinguish oneself from the unbelievers, and refusal to obtain a marriage license could be civilly disobedient.

    See how far that gets them.

  13. jnorris says

    Crampton, you and the law faculty write model legislation to nullify the court’s decision. You make divorce illegal. That’s the best way to protest the end of DOMA, make marriages really permanent, especially in the red, Christian southern states.

  14. justsomeguy says

    Maybe this is just semantics, but doesn’t a person need to be ordered to do something in order to be disobedient? It’s not like you can disobey something that’s never been demanded of you in the first place.

    Unless by “civil disobedience” he means “making a big stink.” That sounds more likely.

  15. cptdoom says

    @Taz #9

    He’s probably talking about stuff like clerks refusing to issue marriage licenses. He’s not bright enough to realize that when government officials refuse to obey the lay it’s not civil disobedience, it’s something else.

    Exactly. Their ” civil disobedience” will basically involve finding more martyrs for their cause by convincing people not to do their jobs and discriminate against same-sex couples, resulting in lawsuits, people being fired and the far right insisting they are being “oppressed” by being forced to live in a society where gay and lesbian human beings are treated equally. And they will ultimately fail.

    There was a lot of talk on the Sunday shows about how the Prop 8 case could be the equivalent to Roe v. Wade and I think that’s a lot of bunk. Unlike abortion, which is a nasty business even if you’re in favor of its legality, marriage is a hopeful and positive thing and anyone protesting them will look like a fool. Notice that even Westboro doesn’t protest outside of same-sex marriages, although I won’t completely put it past them to start. In fact, in every jurisdiction where marriage equality has become the law, the anti-gay side has not interferred with the celebrations of the first marriages. It would be a huge issue if they were to ruin someone else’s wedding deliberately, and I can’t think of much else they could do to raise a stink.

  16. D. C. Sessions says

    True Christians MUST start living together in sin rather than submit to that gay-tainted “marriage.”

    Well, that. Or at least no nookie. But for those who are already married? Divorce is forbidden by direct word of Son of Glorious Leader, so the next best option is to refuse to accept the benefits of “marriage:”

    * No claiming the tax status
    * No taking the spousal benefits at the PX etc.
    * No more roommate arrangements (this helps with the “No nookie for you!” thing.)
    * No more family memberships
    * That “next of kin” thing? Fuggeddaboutit.
    * Oh, and that tax-free inheritance? Yup.
    * Pensions, too.

    Of course it’s a personal sacrifice — but being Christian was never supposed to be easy or comfortable. Glorious Leader has set your task before you, and your duty is clear.

Leave a Reply