Best Wingnut Reaction Yet


Oh man. I’ve been having a great time reading the hysterical reaction from the religious right to the Supreme Court’s marriage equality rulings, but this article in Charisma News is the best one yet. It’s an all you can eat buffet of stupid and crazy, most of it quoting wingnut movie reviewer Ted Baehr, also a Worldnutdaily columnist.

“Neither the court, the state, the president, the Congress, nor even the voters have the right to legalize same-sex marriage,” Baehr says. “It violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which states that Congress can’t deny anyone the freedom to worship.”

Okey dokey. Apparently, “worship” includes the right to force everyone else to do whatever you think God wants them to do, or not do. Fascinating.

“Furthermore, since Samuel Rutherford wrote Lex, Rex, which clarified the rule of law posited by the Magna Carta, all of these forms of government have been under God’s law in the United Kingdom and the United States of America. When king or ruler is above the law, he often acts in imperious and dictatorial ways, for the very nature of power is to corrupt the powerful, unless it is restrained by God’s law. Constitutionally, therefore, the courts can’t tell any Jew, any Christian or any church or synagogue who can and cannot be married.”

Uh, they’re not doing that.

Baehr notes that the idea to abolish marriage and the family comes from The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Frederich Engels, which produced such mass-murdering tyrants as Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Castro.

And if anyone was trying to abolish marriage or the family, that might actually be relevant. Isn’t the wingnut mind fascinating? But wait, it gets better:

“The increasingly socialized federal government does not have the right nor the authority to violate God’s law; they have also violated their own Constitution and the will of the governed. When they do that, they are just like King George. They have abdicated their moral and legal authority and are subject to indictment, trial and just punishment.

“Now all those who freely exercise their inalienable right to religious faith must stop acting like useful idiots and fellow travelers by going along to get along and instead stand for your God-given rights by proclaiming loud and clear that these government servants have crossed the line into illegal activity that has no authority and makes them criminals.

Maybe he should join forces with Larry Klayman. He can act as prosecutor at one of those “citizen grand juries” that Klayman holds in a barn in Arkansas.

Comments

  1. jws1 says

    The phrase “out-of-touch” is a euphemism that I have come to loath. People like this aren’t “out-of-touch”, they’re fascists – and they should be accosted with that term every day of their lives from as many sources as possible.

  2. says

    he increasingly socialized federal government does not have the right nor the authority to violate God’s law

    Let me know when God comes and starts enforcing that law. Maybe he’s get in a scuffle when he meets up with Zeus enforcing Zeus’ law.

  3. Reginald Selkirk says

    When king or ruler is above the law, he often acts in imperious and dictatorial ways, for the very nature of power is to corrupt the powerful, unless it is restrained by God’s law.

    He seems to be saying that God is corrupt.

  4. says

    And let’s be clear — unless we start taking over statehouses with progressive, pro-rights candidates, assholes like this will be over-represented in the halls of power.

    You can’t just leave it to the courts anymore. Because these people will be furiously out in force in the next cycle. And especially at the state level, which is were the important action is taking place.

    Elect better governments. Show this guy and his “fellow travelers” that they don’t represent mainstream thought.

    If not, don’t be surprised if the next government in your state thinks this does represent mainstream thought. And acts accordingly.

    Only when we start consistently winning elections — so much so that the regressives start changing their own policies — can we relax.

  5. UnknownEric the Apostate says

    Baehr notes that the idea to abolish marriage and the family comes from The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Frederich Engels, which produced such mass-murdering tyrants as Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Castro.

    As opposed to The Bible by Anonymous, which produced such mass-murdering tyrants as all the rest of them.

  6. shouldbeworking says

    When they do that, they are just like King George

    Just what do those wingnuts have against King George?

    George VI was a decent sort of fellow, according to the history books I’ve read.

  7. matty1 says

    I actually looked up the Communist Manifesto online and searched for references to marriage and families. Turns out is true that Marx and Engels argued that the abolition of private property would end the economic dependence of women and children on men and that they saw this as removing any interest society has in marriage making it a purely private arrangement. By a weird coincidence the other group I’ve seen arguing for purely private marriages are libertarians – it seems if you go far enough round the curve of any political spectrum you end up meeting the other side.

    Can’t find the bit about gay rights though.

  8. steve84 says

    @matty1
    With the way the entire country is gerrymandered to death that’s almost impossible. Most positions or voting districts simply aren’t competitive anymore.

  9. Nick Gotts says

    matty1@7,

    But in the case of Marx and Engels, they would point out that private property* has not yet been abolished, so society does have an interest in marriage meanwhile.

    *In the means of production. They did not advocate socializing toothbrushes AFAIK.

  10. A. Noyd says

    And if anyone was trying to abolish marriage or the family, that might actually be relevant.

    How the everloving fuck does “let’s make marriage possible for more people” equate to “abolishing marriage”?

  11. sigurd jorsalfar says

    It seems to be a deliberate strategy on the Christian Right (though it could just be shear stupidity) to conflate the religious institution of marriage (aka ‘holy matrimony’) with the secular legal institution of marriage. So even the argument that God opposes gay marriage doesn’t hold water because we aren’t talking about holy matrimony here. The Supreme Court is only ruling on the issue of secular legal marriage. (The other arguments such as straight marriage will be destroyed, civilization will collapse, etc., are non sequiturs no matter what premises you start with).

    To a certain extent the confusion between Church and State marriage is understandable because the law allows secular marriage to arise from the ceremonies used to create religious matrimony. But there is no excuse for this confusion on the part of someone like Ted Baehr who claims to have some knowledge of the subject. Baehr is just a dishonest advocate of risible pseudo-law. He probably thinks he doesn’t have to pay taxes either if he files the right sovereign citizen paper work.

  12. Ben P says

    “that Klayman holds in a barn in Arkansas”

    It’s a barn in Florida thank you very much.

  13. Ben P says

    I actually looked up the Communist Manifesto online and searched for references to marriage and families. Turns out is true that Marx and Engels argued that the abolition of private property would end the economic dependence of women and children on men and that they saw this as removing any interest society has in marriage making it a purely private arrangement. By a weird coincidence the other group I’ve seen arguing for purely private marriages are libertarians – it seems if you go far enough round the curve of any political spectrum you end up meeting the other side.

    Original marxism (as opposed to Marxism Leninism – which was the source for Communist Governments) borders on an anarchic philosophy. It didn’t specifically call for Anarchism, but it predicted that if certain social and economic things came to be, people would naturally fall into a certain order and organized governments would just “whither away.” It was pretty wrong about this, but that’s beside the point.

    Lenin was the one who took Marxism and said “its not enough to say this “might happen,” we need to take control of governments and make it happen.”

  14. leskimopie says

    Constitutionally, therefore, the courts can’t tell any Jew, any Christian or any church or synagogue who can and cannot be married.”

    Unless theyre one of those liberal commie churches who actually want to marry 2 guys or 2 gals…in which case they can tell them who cannot be married…because reasons.

  15. says

    I just got a better one from the Pennsylvania Pastors’ Network in my e-mail. Unfortunately, it isn’t up on the PPN’s website yet; so I’ll give you the full glory of its wingnuttery. Enjoy:

    PHILADELPHIA – Last Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and also caused Proposition 8 to be invalidated, thereby ruling against the majority of California voters. .

    While Wednesday’s rulings did not impose the sweeping redefinition of marriage that gay activists were seeking, it did fling the doors wide open to a whole new wave of lawsuits seeking to do just that. Caught in the cross hairs of the national debate over marriage laws are the religious freedoms of all Americans, but particularly those who hold to a Biblical worldview.

    Many Christians and conservatives believe that the decision, while not unexpected, is nonetheless highly troublesome for America, feeling that the form of government which was established to undergird and guard Americans’ rights and freedoms will not survive much longer if acts like last week’s continue unchecked. They summarize the Court’s decision as nothing less than judicial tyranny.

    According to Sam Rohrer, President of the Pennsylvania Pastor’s Network, the Court committed three major acts of defiance. He states, “First, five Supreme Court Justices defiled their Constitutional oath by declaring supremacy over the Executive and Legislative Branch by ruling null and void a legitimate and lawful act of Congress (DOMA) signed by President Clinton. By so doing, they have challenged the authority of Congress and violated the Separation of Powers. If Congress does not swiftly respond, they will condone this act of tyranny and become complicit in it. Secondly, they defied the Constitutional concept of state sovereignty, the citizens of California and all American citizens by declaring unconstitutional a legitimate act of the people through constitutional referendum. By recognizing the illegitimate actions of the California court, they sidestepped creating an immediate constitutional crisis by attacking the 10th Amendment directly, but accomplished the same thing. Finally, they denounced God Himself by declaring that God’s definition of marriage is not absolute. As such, the Court, just like shifting tectonic plates underneath the ocean, has set in motion a series of tsunamis that could destroy our Constitutional republic.”

    Although some claim that the Court simply returned the issue of defining marriage to the states, this is up for critical debate. What many say is that the Supreme Court actually ruled that the people of any individual state have no power to create and enact their own laws. This ruling can be described as nothing less than judicial tyranny, and should enrage all Americans who cherish their right to vote, regardless of religion, race, or creed.

    Also, in striking down DOMA, which many say did nothing to hamper or govern the individual states in their laws concerning marriage, but simply defined, for federal purposes, what marriage means when written into federal statues, the Court essentially ruled that Congress does not possess the ability to define for itself the terms within the laws it creates, yet every governing body at every level of society does exactly that. This ruling creates a precedent that grants the Court unlimited power to randomly create and define whichever words it wants in whatever way it wants, regardless of the intent of Congress or any other governing body when it seeks to define its own terms. When combined with the refusal of the Federal Executive Branch to defend DOMA and the California Executive branch to defend Prop 8, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision should awaken all Americans to the threat that exists to their most cherished freedoms and the strength of any current law they look to protect.

    The Pennsylvania Pastors’ Network is a group of biblically faithful clergy and church liaisons whose objective is to build a permanent infrastructure of like-minded clergy who affirm the authority of Scripture, take seriously Jesus’ command to be the “salt and light” to the culture, encourage informed Christian thinking about contemporary social issues; examine public policy issues without politicizing their pulpits and engage their congregations in taking part in our political process on a non-partisan basis.

    The Pennsylvania Pastors’ Network website continues to offer a wealth of resources to pastors to help them equip their congregations to live a Christian life, from sermon notes to corporate prayers for our nation, to resources for laypeople, covering everything from preparation to finances.

    The Pennsylvania Pastors’ Network is an affiliate of the American Pastors Network.

    To contact them visit. http://www.papastors.net or call 610.584.1096.

  16. freemage says

    I love it when conservatives abandon Federalism. It makes their entire case so freakin’ transparent.

  17. says

    @sigurd jorsalfar #11 – It is a very successful strategy, as I’ve heard a great many secularists who say that marriage laws should all be repealed because of the First Amendment separation of church and state.

  18. chilidog99 says

    I take it that that is another Joseph Farah site?

    I’ve never posted there before, yet my disqus account is banned.

    The only other site I am banned from is WND.

  19. whheydt says

    Re: ORac @ #16…

    Looks like Rohrer needs a remedial Civics course, to be followed by actually *reading* accounts of the events leading up to the SCOTUS decisions.

  20. frankb says

    By so doing, they have challenged the authority of Congress and violated the Separation of Powers. If Congress does not swiftly respond, they will condone this act of tyranny

    This is precisely what the “separation of powers” or the “balance of powers” is. Congress was the tyrant in passing the law in the first place. So separation of powers saved the day. Civic leason fail for Rohrer.

  21. dan4 says

    Outside of actually outlawing procreation, how exactly do you “abolish the family?”

  22. raven says

    he increasingly socialized federal government does not have the right nor the authority to violate God’s law.

    Which god?

    There are thousands at the least.

  23. Akira MacKenzie says

    I assure Mr. Baehr that my desire to see the end of the family has nothing to do with Communism and everything to do with remembering the nightmare of actually having lived in a family.

    Obviously, you must have been an orphan, or a fat, pampered patriarchy with the latest model of Stepford Wife and a brood of equally compliant brats.

  24. dingojack says

    You know who else was out to destroy families?

    For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
    And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.
    He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me”. Matthew 10:35-37.

    JESUS!

    Dingo

  25. iangould says

    “Constitutionally, therefore, the courts can’t tell any Jew, any Christian or any church or synagogue who can and cannot be married.””

    So the Mormons can bring back polygamy and the Hassedim can marry off 13 year olds?

  26. tuxedocartman says

    A.Noyd @ #10: the same way extending more (marriage) rights to more people is, “an assault on freedom.” That one bugs me the most every time i see it, which has been a lot lately. It’s like there’s a conservative wingnut magnetic refrigerator poetry set, and they’ve lost all but two or three of the phrases.

  27. John Pieret says

    From the article:

    The church has to reclaim marriage as its unique institution. Whatever anyone wants to do outside of the church may be their business, but it is not sanctioned by God’s law. The state has the right to regulate only what the Constitution allows it to regulate, because there is no liberty for license. But the state does not have the right to tell the biblical, believing, Trinitarian, Christian church that any couple outside of the faith is married.

    I’m sure all the Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc., etc. … not to mention the “nones” … will be thrilled to know that they aren’t really married.

  28. sigurd jorsalfar says

    @18 Secularists who want to make the argument that marriage as a legal institution should be abolished are free to do so. A case can be made. But the fact that current law allows religious institutions (in addition to secular magistrates) to perform the ceremony that gives rise to legal marriage is a weak and very unpersuasive argument against marriage as a legal institution.

  29. ospalh says

    Complainig about an “increasingly socialized federal government” when it really isn’t, and then mentioning the Communist Manifesto is quite ironic.

    From paragraph two of the Communist Manifesto:

    Where the Opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of Communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries?

Leave a Reply