Wingnuts Promise to Resist Marriage Equality Ruling

With the Supreme Court about to rule on two cases involving marriage equality, a Who’s Who of the wingnut set have joined together and signed a “Marriage Solidarity Statement” pledging to resist any ruling in favor of same-sex marriage. The list of signees goes on for several pages in double columns. The rhetoric will sound quite familiar.

As Christian citizens united together, we will not stand by while the destruction of the institution of marriage unfolds in this nation we love. The Sacred Scriptures and unbroken teaching of the Church confirm that marriage is between one man and one woman. We stand together in solidarity to defend marriage and the family and society founded upon them. The effort to redefine marriage threatens the proper mediating role of the Church in society.

Experience and history have shown us that if the government redefines marriage to grant a legal equivalency to same-sex couples, that same government will then enforce such an action with the police power of the State. This will bring about an inevitable collision with religious freedom and conscience rights. We cannot and will not allow this to occur on our watch. Religious freedom is the first freedom in the American experiment for good reason.

Oh, nonsense. Your religious freedom to discriminate against gay people is no different from your religious freedom to discriminate against women, black people or those of other religions. In your church, you have every right to do so. If you own a business that is open to the public, you may not have that right depending on the state that business is in. But your religious freedom is burdened to the exact same degree that it is burdened by not being allowed to refuse to serve a woman, a black person, a Muslim or an atheist (and to the same degree that they are also prohibited from discriminating against you because you’re a Christian).

If the Supreme Court were to issue a decision that redefined marriage or provided a precedent on which to build an argument to redefine marriage, the Supreme Court will thereby undermine its legitimacy. The Court will significantly decrease its credibility and impair the role it has assumed for itself as a moral authority. It will be acting beyond its proper constitutional role and contrary to the Natural Moral Law which transcends religions, culture, and time.

As Christians united together in defense of marriage, we pray that this will not happen. But, make no mistake about our resolve. While there are many things we can endure, redefining marriage is so fundamental to the natural order and the true common good that this is the line we must draw and one we cannot and will not cross.

Yeah? So what are you going to do? Marriage equality is absolutely inevitable in this country. What are going to do to avoid crossing that line? Hold prayer rallies? Be my guest. Leave the country? Have at it. Disrupt gay weddings? You’ll be arrested. But hey, if you wanna try that, I’ll pop the popcorn and enjoy the show. You lost. And there isn’t a damn thing you can do about it.

Naturally, the Worldnutdaily is helping to promote this outburst of impotent rage, calling it a “stunning challenge” to the Supreme Court’s authority. But there’s nothing remotely stunning about it. It’s the same lame, predictable reaction from the right whenever the Supreme Court hands down a ruling they don’t like (see Roe v Wade, the flag burning decision, the ruling overturning sodomy laws, the health care ruling, etc).

28 comments on this post.
  1. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return!:

    Wingnuts Promise to Resist Marriage Equality Ruling

    Well, they would.

    Its the mark of the wingnut these days – and the good thing is, almost (?) everyone now knows that.

    Its already the case in a lot of circles that opponents of equal marriage are viewed with the exact same mix of contempt and pity as the opponents of interracial marriage.

  2. Gregory in Seattle:

    Ed, I have been saying something like that for years, since Washington’s Referendum 71 was proposed: as a gay atheist, I have every constitutional right to discriminate against Christians that Christians have to discriminate against gays and atheists.

    Oh, the sputtering and spinning of heads THAT comment has caused!

  3. Moggie:

    It will be acting beyond its proper constitutional role and contrary to the Natural Moral Law which transcends religions, culture, and time.

    Gotta love those caps.

  4. Larry:

    It will be acting beyond its proper constitutional role and contrary to the Natural Moral Law which transcends religions, culture, and time.

    Whoa, that’s straight out of Dr. Who!

  5. Martin Wagner:

    Take hate and fear away from the religious, and what do they have? Nothing.

  6. richardelguru:

    “there’s nothing remotely stunning about it”

    Ed, I must disagree with you here: the stupidity is stunning.

  7. marcus:

    Shorter: Pleeese don’t hurts our little fee–fees! :(

  8. Chiroptera:

    Resist marriage equality? What are they going to do? Refuse to gay marry?

  9. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return!:

    @4. Larry : Hey, don’t diss the Doctor please!

    (One thing the last Gallifreyan is NOT is a bigot!)

  10. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return!:

    Not in any incarnation.

  11. oranje:

    I loved the “unbroken teaching” bit. As if they have to really insist their religion isn’t consensus-based and things like divinity weren’t voted upon by an assembly. And don’t get me started on the translations and forgeries.

  12. dingojack:

    If the Supreme Court were to issue a decision that redefined marriage or provided a precedent on which to build an argument to redefine marriage, the Supreme Court will thereby undermine its legitimacy.….”

    With whom, exactly? With the handful of wingnuts who actually give a rat-ass about who gets married to whom?

    The Court will significantly decrease its credibility and impair the role it has assumed for itself as a moral authority

    Courts interpret the law as being what a fairly conservative ‘man on the Clapham Omnibus’ would consider as just. It just so happens that your view is mired so far in the past that the law (and the ‘person on the street’, as s/he is called now) has moved on. You lost. Deal with it.
    .
    It will be acting beyond its proper constitutional role …

    There’s this weird, obscure and little-read document called “The Constitution of the Untied States of America”, you might like to read it. It sets up a Judicial arm of government to ensure the legality of legislation. In part its job is to match the law to the realities of the society the laws are trying to administer.

    ” …and contrary to the Natural Moral Law which transcends religions, culture, and time

    No such thing. Different societies have had differing cultures, with differing ideas of ‘natural moral law’ that have included cannibalism, incest, ritualised prostitution, slavery, repression of women, polygyny and polyandry, amongst many, many others.

    So go ahead and assemble your crowd of the few pathetic losers who can be bothered to get their lardy-asses off their couches (and figure out how to navigate to somewhere other than the local Chick-a-Filla) and protest.
    Americans really need a good laugh right now. And believe me laughing and pointing at old white guys whining about losing their privilege is just what the doctor ordered.

    Dingo

  13. frankb:

    When I think of NATURAL MORAL LAW, I think of cavemen beating each other over the head with clubs. I think of raping, pillaging, and burning. But then came agriculture and then civilization to make that work. Yeah, those new fangled unnatural things. I don’t remember anyone asking the christians to set the moral standards for the nation other than the christians themselves. Who made you sheriff?

  14. Modusoperandi:

    I DONT CARE WHAT YOU SAY ED BRAYTON IM GOING TO RESIST GAY MARRIAGE. NO GOVERNMENT IS GONNA FORCE ME TO MARRY SOME GAYHOMO, NO MATTER HOW DREAMY HIS EYES ARE!

  15. D. C. Sessions:

    Since they made this ultimatum, there’s been quite a bit of speculation regarding the “or else” clause.

    Some of the suggestions have included:
    * Getting divorced (or refusing to marry) rather than participate in an institution that the Government has corrupted.
    * Burning their copies of The Rocky Horror Picture Show in protest.
    * Moving to a more Godly country such as Canada or China.
    * Refuse service to parties of two men or two women. Not clear what they do with two men and two women.
    * Boycott the Supreme Court

    Lots of room for others.

  16. W. Kevin Vicklund:

    Decision will be announced tomorrow – the 10th anniversary of Lawrence v. Texas.

  17. John Pieret:

    the Natural Moral Law which transcends religions, culture, and time

    … but not the Constitution of the United States … you know, the highest law of the land that you wingnut claim to revere but usually have no clue as to.

  18. Artor:

    SteveoR @9
    Generally no, and not toward humans at all, but the good Doctor does have some issues with Daleks. Even in the (admittedly rare) cases he encounters a non-standard Dalek, he insists they are all the same; hateful, mindless killing machines, fit only to be destroyed on sight.

  19. Pierce R. Butler:

    … the Supreme Court will thereby undermine its legitimacy. The Court will significantly decrease its credibility and impair the role it has assumed for itself as a moral authority. It will be acting beyond its proper constitutional role …

    Too late, wingnuts: the SCOTUS already did all those things, totally & irremediably, back in December of 2000.

  20. eric:

    Yeah? So what are you going to do?

    Please, please, protest outside courthouses in such great numbers that the Army has to be called on to escort gay couples into the building. Make sure you use nasty placards, too. Let’s face it, history students today don’t connect with the Little Rock Nine the same way students 20 or 30 years ago might have.

    The younger generation needs this generation’s bigots to step up and provide the sort of powerful imagery that will (re)fuel the civil rights movement for the next 20 years.

  21. Johnny Vector:

    My response to them:

    “What are you gonna do, bleed on me?”

  22. dingojack:

    Oh Modus way to break the hearts of the likes of lil’ Teddy and all those other ”Moral Majority’ Crusaders (read ‘Friends of Narnia’) out there.
    You terrible tease, you!!
    ;) Dingo

  23. eric:

    Religious freedom is the first freedom in the American experiment for good reason.

    Hmmm..is he saying that the right to bear arms is less important than the right to a free press?

  24. d.c.wilson:

    I suspect several rent boys just got shoved deeper into the closet.

  25. Gregory in Seattle:

    @W. Kevin Vicklund #16 –

    Decision will be announced tomorrow – the 10th anniversary of Lawrence v. Texas.

    I am going to take that as a good omen.

  26. Bronze Dog:

    The obligatory reproduction trope is what comes to my mind when they say stuff like “natural moral law.” They think everyone should be required to pair up with a member of the opposite sex and pop out babies. Because that’s what animals do naturally, right? Of course, that’s not true, either. Some species form groups where only the alpha male and alpha female breed, while the other pack members are there for support roles. I’m on the hetero/asexual border, so I’m not likely going to marry and have kids of my own. But that doesn’t mean I can’t contribute to society.

  27. Abby Normal:

    *cough* Massive Resistance *cough*

    Sorry, had a little history stuck in my throat.

  28. dogfightwithdogma:

    Religious freedom is the first freedom in the American experiment for good reason.

    What reason is that? To my knowledge, there is no particular reason that the First Amendment includes religious liberty. Correct me if I am wrong, but the Bill of Rights was not numbered so as to indicate any kind of a hierarchy of rights nor to indicate that any one of the rights in the Bill of Rights is any more important than any of the others. I don’t know what history texts these bozos have read or what history they were taught, but they’ve got the wrong idea about the numbering of the items in the Bill of Rights.

Leave a comment

You must be