Equality For All

Knight: Gay People 'Stealing The Moral Capital Of Marriage'

Conservative commentator Robert Knight is not optimistic about the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision in a set of marriage equality cases, telling a West Virginia radio program yesterday that “unless God intervenes, the court looks poised to create a brand-new right to gay marriage out of the Constitution, which is just literally insane and absurd.”

Knight was particularly annoyed by Justice Kennedy’s comments about marriage conferring “dignity” and “ennoblement” to gay couples. “I was thinking about that,” he told Huntington-based talk radio host Tom Roten, “and I thought, the way you’re doing that is by stealing the moral capital of marriage and conveying it to other relationships that aren’t anything like it. That is not ennobling them, that is transferring moral capital.”

“It’s like taking a losing team, and they feel bad about their losing record,” he explained, “so they say, okay, now they’re going to have the same record as this winning team over here so everybody feels better.”

Knight was also upset that the only children discussed during the Supreme Court arguments were children being raised by gay parents. “What about the vast impact on children across America if gay marriage is legalized?” he asked. “Think of the textbook changes. Think of what schools will be teaching directly against the beliefs of millions of American parents. I mean, we’re putting a counterfeit in the law, we’re going to use the law to impose it on the country.”

Although the attorneys arguing on behalf of marriage equality at the court explicitly noted that clergy in marriage equality states are not required to marry same-sex couples, Knight falsely claimed that Solicitor General Donald Verrilli had said that question should be left to the states.

“Think in the free country of ours, they’re casually talking about using the power of the state to force pastors to bless something that the Bible says is an abomination,” he said. “We are really in an insane age here when it’s come to that. And unless the American people rise up and say ‘enough,’ it’s just going to get worse.”


Robert Oscar Lopez: US Will Have To Pay 'Reparations' To Children Of Gay Parents

Writing in the American Thinker today, Robert Oscar Lopez suggests that the federal government should be prepared to pay “reparations” to children raised by gay and lesbian parents, just as it did to Japanese-Americans who were sent to internment camps during World War II.

Lopez, who is openly bisexual but opposes marriage equality in part because he contends he was injured by growing up with a lesbian mother, compares people who give positive accounts of being raised by gay parents to “happy Japanese-Americans” who “were actually exceedingly harsh, even cruel, to the Japanese-Americans who defied the government and tried to resist internment.”

But, he writes, by 2030 “you won’t have to worry about PFLAG’s wunderkinder.  It’s the others you will have to worry about, because there will be a lot of them, and like the Japanese-Americans who came around to contesting what Roosevelt did to them, they will be organized and demanding to be repaid for what was taken from them: gender diversity, gender equality at home, their heritage, their legacy, their identity.”

Lopez takes particular aim at the plaintiffs in DeBoer vs. Snyder, one of the marriage cases being considered by the Supreme Court, a lesbian couple who are fighting for custody rights for each other’s adopted children. “The DeBoer v. Snyder case insists that children should be subject to the parental authority of gay adults who are sleeping with one of their parents, rather than the authority of their father and mother,” he writes.

“Should DeBoer end with a gay SCOTUS victory,” he warns, “birth parents will be given cold comfort if the children they consign to adoption end up playing Cinderella to gay stepparents.”

Over time, there is no doubt that there will be at least 100,000 citizens, probably well over 500,000, placed into same-sex homes entirely or predominantly because of the state’s response to demands for expanded marriage rights from gay lobbying organizations.

These citizens will not have chosen to be deprived of a parent of one gender and subjected to the authority of an additional guardian of the other gender – these are citizens for whom the choice will have been made by the government (a government run by an older generation), when they were infants, or not even born yet, and had no way to consent to or understand what was being done to them.

A sizable number of these citizens could come together and document losses, damages, or “pain and suffering” incurred because they were forced to grow up in a same-sex parenting home as opposed to a home with a mother and father.  (Picture how “pain and suffering” was just used by a lesbian couple to levy a $135,000 fine on Sweet Cakes by Melissa.)  If so, there will be grounds for later Congresses, Supreme Courts, and presidential administrations – ones that aren’t as cowed by the gay lobby as our current leaders – to go back and investigate how gay marriage passed, how it led to depriving children of a mother or father, and who has to pay up.

COLAGE’s and PFLAG’s poster children are well-spoken and probably good-hearted people.  Bless them.  But if you read John Okada’s No-No Boy, you will find that most Japanese-Americans whose families were interned opted to serve in the United States military.  These happy Japanese-Americans were actually exceedingly harsh, even cruel, to the Japanese-Americans who defied the government and tried to resist internment.  There are always some people – often a seeming majority – among an aggrieved group who say they have no grievances; they usually say the complainers are crazy, bitter, wrong, or un-American.

In 2030, you won’t have to worry about PFLAG’s wunderkinder.  It’s the others you will have to worry about, because there will be a lot of them, and like the Japanese-Americans who came around to contesting what Roosevelt did to them, they will be organized and demanding to be repaid for what was taken from them: gender diversity, gender equality at home, their heritage, their legacy, their identity.

Whatever the numbers of kids being raised in gay homes might be right now, with the rise of gay marriage, there was a rise in kids being raised by gay couples.  Those responsible for gay marriage will be responsible for thousands upon thousands of individual children who would not have been raised by same-sex couples were it not for actions taken by the government.

The DeBoer v. Snyder case insists that children should be subject to the parental authority of gay adults who are sleeping with one of their parents, rather than the authority of their father and mother.  In many adoption cases likely to be affected by this scenario, the birth parents decided to surrender custody to an individual without knowing or agreeing to the fact that the individual would get into a gay relationship and then place the child under the gay lover’s power, too.  Should DeBoer end with a gay SCOTUS victory, birth parents will be given cold comfort if the children they consign to adoption end up playing Cinderella to gay stepparents.

But on an even more basic level, if the Supreme Court sides with Ms. DeBoer, they will be giving gay adults the right to force children to grow up without something that the vast majority of their peers have: a mother and father.  On top of that will be added the problem of denying citizens their heritage.  If this ends in a reparations trial decades down the line, we can’t say there weren’t ample warning signs of what was to come.


Institute On The Constitution Warns God Will Destroy America If SCOTUS Backs Gay Marriage

Last month, the Institute on the Constitution, the Christian reconstructionist group led by longtime Roy Moore ally Michael Peroutka, joined a Supreme Court amicus brief warning the justices that if they decide to strike down state-level bans on marriage equality, “it could bring God’s judgment on the Nation.”

IOC’s Jake MacAulay, who came to Peroutka’s group from the ministry of fiery Minnesota pastor Bradlee Dean, drove home this point in a video this week, in which he warns that it would be “very wrong and very dangerous” for the Supreme Court to back marriage equality, because “to attempt to change that which is eternal and forever fixed by the Creator is to do nothing less than make the claim that you are God.”

“Psalm Two warns that when the judges and the rulers of the earth throw off God’s law and take it upon themselves to make their own rules for right and wrong, they will be dashed to pieces like a rod of iron striking a clay pot,” MacAulay warns. “Regrettably we seem to be setting ourselves up for this very lesson. Unless our government officials start obeying God and stop ‘playing god,’ this is a lesson we will experience fully.”

Now to attempt to change that which is eternal and forever fixed by the Creator is to do nothing less than make the claim that you are God. This is very wrong and very dangerous, and the Supreme Court of these United States is now considering taking this very same dangerous step.

While there are many conclusions that can be drawn as we witness this cultural degradation, one comes most immediately to my mind. When a culture discards the Word of God as the standard for what is right and what is wrong, and relegates these determinations to fallen men, the results are as predictable as they are terrible.

In the time of the founding of America, when a Biblical worldview was predominant in the American people, this connection between following the commandments and peaceable existence was clearly known, easily understood and evidentially experienced in the American culture. Undoubtedly, living prosperously by living righteously is what Jefferson meant when he used the phrase “pursuit of happiness”.

Psalm Two warns that when the judges and the rulers of the earth throw off God’s law and take it upon themselves to make their own rules for right and wrong, they will be dashed to pieces like a rod of iron striking a clay pot.

Regrettably we seem to be setting ourselves up for this very lesson. Unless our government officials start obeying God and stop “playing god,” this is a lesson we will experience fully.

Sheriff Mack: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Is 'A Very Senile And Evil Person' Who Will 'Destroy Marriage'

Richard Mack, the Arizona “constitutional sheriff” who urges local and state elected officials and law enforcement officers to ignore federal laws, said in a radio interview yesterday that states must “recuse themselves” from any Supreme Court ruling striking down same-sex marriage bans, a ruling that he expected from a court led by the “very senile and evil” Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

“I think this Supreme Court is bought and paid for, I think they’re just political hacks, most of them, and they will not use moral agency or tradition or biblical principle. They’re just going to do what they’re there for,” Mack told far-right “Patriot” movement radio program “ Liberty Roundtable.”

“Those people have been put there, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a very senile and evil person, she does not like America, she does not like our Constitution,” he said, adding that if President Obama “was capable of being embarrassed or having any shame” it would be in his nomination of “Helen Kagan.” (The program’s host, Sam Bushman, quickly pointed out that he meant Elena Kagan.)

Saying that Justices Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor should recuse themselves from the case because “one of the reasons they were put on the court was to promote this movement in America to destroy marriage,” Mack said, “We’ve got to do something in this country to save our families and marriage.”

But he was not optimistic. After a Supreme Court ruling, he said, “the states are going to have to even more so recuse themselves from the federal government and from the Supreme Court ruling. And it’s going to take some guts.”

He told Bushman that the federal government has “no purview” over marriage, to which Bushman replied, “the only skin in the game they have is to peddle perversion.”

Anti-Gay Activists Urge 'Resistance' Before Marriage Equality Destroys 'Just About Everything'

On Tuesday, as the Supreme Court was hearing arguments on the constitutionality of gay marriage bans, E.W. Jackson convened a conference call with Texas-based pastor Rick Scarborough and conservative attorney William Olson to discuss how a decision in favor of marriage equality would destroy America.

“Gentlemen, we’re facing a crisis unlike any before,” Scarborough told callers, saying that while Roe v. Wade was “a dreadful decision wreaking havoc upon the nation and upon the world” at least “with abortion we can opt out of that.”

Marriage equality, he warned, would be a different story.

“I have portrayed it as two trains on the same track going in opposite directions,” he said. “One is the train of free speech and religious rights, religious liberty as defined in the First Amendment. But the other train is this newly created, unnatural civil right of two men being able to marry one another or two women marrying one another.”

“And only God knows where we go after that,” he continued, “because once you tear down that wall, how do you keep a man from marrying a child, or five men from marrying one woman or one man marrying five women? Once the wall is torn down and God’s law is no longer supported by our federal laws and our statutes, then we move into a realm that we’ve never lived in before, but I can assure you religious liberty will not survive that. And there will be a collision, a collision unparalleled in American history.”

He urged callers to sign a pledge organized by Religious Right leaders vowing to meet any marriage equality decision with civil disobedience. If enough people sign the pledge, he said, maybe the court “will pause and say, ‘We’re about to sow to the wind and reap a whirlwind.’”

“This is the day for modern-day Bonhoffers in America to stand up and speak up,” he said, referring to the German pastor who was executed by Nazi forces.

Olson warned at a Supreme Court decision in favor of marriage equality would mean “we no longer have a written constitution, we no longer have rule of law, we have had Darwinian revolution influence the courts.”

“So we have an extraordinary moment where we might be losing just about everything…if an adverse decision is not met with resistance,” he said.

Olson told callers that while “we’re not being told we cannot preach the Gospel, but it’s awfully close to that command that requires us to obey God and not obey man.”

Referring to Scarborough’s comment at a press conference last week that he would be willing to die fighting marriage equality, Olson said, “As extraordinary as that sounds, that is not an impossibility.”

Anti-gay activists, he said, will have to practice civil disobedience such as “jury nullification” and encouraging state elected officials to refuse to enforce a marriage equality decision. This led Jackson to slam Republican politicians who say they would attend the wedding of a gay or lesbian loved one.

“The popular compromise it seems for politicians these days is, ‘I’m opposed to same-sex marriage, but I would go to a same-sex ceremony to support a friend,’” he said. “It’s unconscionable.”


Tamara Scott: If You Support Gender Equality, You Should Oppose Gay Marriage

Last week, Iowa Republican National Committee member Tamara Scott invited fellow RNC member Carolyn McClarty of Oklahoma on to her “Truth for Our Time” radio program to discuss an anti-marriage-equality amicus brief that a subset of conservative RNC members led by McClarty submitted to the Supreme Court.

As the two walked through the various points made in the amicus brief, Scott wandered into a digression about how the “women who are fussing on the left” about wanting to eventually see equal numbers of men and women in Congress should also oppose marriage equality, because if you ban gay marriage, there will be an equal number of men and women in each marriage.

“By 2020, they want 50/50 in the state houses and the U.S. House and Senate. They want 50 percent women and 50 percent men, they want 50/50, they want equality,” she said. “So my laugh is, why wouldn’t you want equality in a marriage? Why aren’t those same women wanting that same argument at home? Because we know children do better when they’re raised by their biological parents.”

This led McClarty to explain that “the extreme feminist movement and the gay liberation movement really is using same-sex marriage as a way to destroy marriage.”

“The feminist movement, they’ve been against marriage from the beginning, against traditional marriage, and it was up until the Massachusetts court case in 2003 where they recognized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts that they kind of changed their tune,” she said. “And now they see that this would also destroy marriage, so they’re for same-sex marriage.”

This led Scott to a discussion of civil unions, which she said she also can’t support because there is still the issue of “the act” that “God has not condoned,” and so allowing civil unions is “asking your fellow citizens to embrace something that goes against their First Amendment religious protections.”

“Well, it doesn’t make sense to me, because the whole point of our concern with the same-sex marriage is that the act, that God has not condoned it,” she explained. “I can’t condone what he’s condemned. I just can’t go there. So to ask or to force American citizens to condone something that’s against their deeply held religious convictions is wrong. So whether you call it marriage or you call it a civil union, you’re still asking your fellow citizens to embrace something that goes against their First Amendment religious protections.


Walker Repeats Support For Federal Marriage Amendment, Dodges Personhood Question

In an interview with the Iowa conservative blog Caffeinated Thoughts on Saturday, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker repeated his call for a constitutional amendment to preserve state-level bans on same-sex marriage if the Supreme Court strikes them down, immediately before dodging a question on an anti-choice “personhood” amendment by saying that if he were president he wouldn’t “handle any constitutional amendments.”

Walker told Caffeinated Thoughts’ Shane Vander Hart that he is “still hoping” the Supreme Court will preserve state-level marriage bans. “If they don’t,” he added, “the only other viable option out there is to support a constitutional amendment, again, believing, I believe in not just in marriage being defined as one man and one woman, but I also believe in states’ rights. I think that’s an issue that appropriately belongs in the states.”

When Vander Hart asked Walker “what kind of pro-life legislation would a President Walker sign,” and if that would include a “personhood law,” Walker responded. “Well, the personhood would require an amendment and the president, no matter who it is, doesn’t handle any constitutional amendments, so that would be something that people who are passionate about that in the Senate need to have leaders there.”

He went on to say that he would support a 20-week abortion ban and the continuation of the Hyde Amendment.

Matt Barber: If It Rules For Marriage Equality, 'This Supreme Court Will No Longer Be Legitimate'

Liberty University’s Matt Barber took anti-gay activists’ vow to disobey a Supreme Court ruling for marriage equality to its extreme yesterday, telling Iowa radio host Steve Deace that if the court strikes down bans on same-sex marriage, it will “no longer be legitimate” as a court.

Saying that such a ruling would be the “Dred Scott of marriage,” Barber told Deace that if the justices “presume to redefine the institution of marriage, thereby destroying the institution of natural marriage, this Supreme Court will no longer be legitimate.”

Barber said that there “would be no rationale” for such a decision. “There’s no constitutional rationale,” he said, “there’s no historical rationale, there’s no biological rationale, there simply is no rationale other than that they want it so very badly, ‘they’ being homosexual activists and other cultural Marxists, leftists, people who are seeking to undermine the institution of natural marriage and ultimately God’s design for human sexuality.”

When Deace asked him what would happen if the Supreme Court were to side with anti-gay activists on the marriage issue, Barber echoed his colleague Mat Staver in saying that the movement would have to then get to work making sure that gays and lesbians can no longer get married anywhere in the U.S.

First, he said, the movement would have to work to repeal state-level judicial decisions instituting marriage equality, “and then work from there to make sure that marriage is not redefined in any of our 50 states here and to undo the damage that has already been done.”

Rick Santorum: Supreme Court Marriage Ruling Could Lead To Christians Being 'Persecuted And Maybe Even Prosecuted'

Rick Santorum’s movie studio, EchoLight Studios, issued a press release yesterday in anticipation of today’s arguments in the marriage cases before the Supreme Court, warning that a decision in favor of marriage equality could lead to the persecution of people who reject “the secularism that is now coming from the government.”

In the press release, Santorum warns that those “who want to live their life consistent with biblical teachings are not being given space to do that."

"It is an increasing view that if you are not with this new orthodoxy, the secularism that is now coming from the government, that these are the values that the government values. If you don't live up to those values, well then you can be persecuted and maybe even prosecuted for doing so," he added.

Supreme Court will begin hearing arguments to determine if same-sex marriage should be nationally recognized in the United States starting April 28. The outcome of these hearings, set for late June, could cause a potentially damaging ripple effect for conservative business owners who, based on their personal religious beliefs, do not want to participate in same-sex wedding ceremonies as was explored in the award-winning EchoLight Studios documentary, "One Generation Away."

"One of the biggest changes in this country in the last four or five years is the level of hostility rising toward people of faith taking public viewpoints in their business or in the public square, even in schools and the military," said Former Senator and EchoLight CEO Rick Santorum. "Those who want to live their life consistent with biblical teachings are not being given space to do that. "

The backdrop to the Supreme Court holding this hearing is a number of high-profile cases of Christian business owners being forced by the government to provide services for same-sex weddings. As highlighted in "One Generation Away," which was released last September, there is a growing understanding that the redefinition of marriage cannot be separated from a loss of freedom.

"It is an increasing view that if you are not with this new orthodoxy, the secularism that is now coming from the government, that these are the values that the government values. If you don't live up to those values, well then you can be persecuted and maybe even prosecuted for doing so," concluded Santorum.

Peter LaBarbera Is 'Hoping And Praying' For A 'Constitutional Crisis' On Marriage

Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality said last month that he is “hoping and praying” that if the Supreme Court strikes down state bans on same-sex marriage, enough states will follow the lead of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore in defying the decision that it will “create a constitutional crisis.”

Calling Moore “a national hero,” LaBarbera told South Carolina pastor Kevin Boling on his “Knowing the Truth” radio program that while “the judicial system has largely sold out to the homosexual activist movement,” Moore has at least “tried to put [on] the brakes.”

“I’m hoping and praying that some state somewhere, more than one, many states will say ‘no’ if the Supreme Court decides to pull a Roe v. Wade on homosexual so-called marriage, which would be to nationalize it or attempt to nationalize this ridiculous homosexual marriage movement,” he said.

“If it is nationalized in June or whenever that decision from the Supreme Court comes down,” he added, “I’m hoping that there is, that this creates a constitutional crisis and states fight back like what’s going on in Alabama.”

Boling also asked LaBarbera the question that many Republican presidential candidates have been facing: Would he go to a gay or lesbian couples’ wedding?

Boling offered that he “absolutely” would not, and LaBarbera agreed, noting that he also would not go to the wedding of someone who had previously been divorced.

“I agree with you, Kevin, with one caveat. I guess the same should also apply if the guy is on his third trophy wife, we shouldn’t go to that wedding either,” he said.

This led LaBarbera to discuss how marriage equality is “one of the true evils of the homosexual activist movement” because it is trying to “change perversion by wrapping it in something that’s good.”

“I mean we’re talking about one of the true evils of the homosexual activist movement,” LaBarbera told Boling, “which is the wedding — pardon the pun — of perversion with the sacred institution that is meant to be the picture of our relationship with Jesus Christ. That is wicked.“
He cautioned that it’s not just the “extreme form” of the LGBT rights movement that is evil because “the so-called conservative end, which is basically domesticated homosexuality…is also evil.”

“It’s like taking an old, beat-up desk that’s full of stains and scratched and putting a thin veneer on top of it and then saying, oh look this is a great desk. You cannot change perversion by wrapping it in something that’s good,” he said.


Are Conservative Justices Suggesting that Oppression Justifies More Oppression?

Historical discrimination against gays and lesbians warrants heightened scrutiny under Equal Protection, not continued discrimination.
PFAW Foundation

In Marriage Arguments, Scalia Overlooks the People's Role in Adopting Equal Protection

Scalia says judicial interpretations of Equal Protection bypass the people, but it was the people who chose to constrain themselves with Equal Protection.
PFAW Foundation

Justice Ginsburg Tackles Idea That Marriage Definition Has Existed For Millennia

One of the words being bandied about at this morning's oral arguments in the marriage cases was "millennia." One of the anti-equality side's main talking points is that equality proponents are asking the Justices to "redefine marriage," as if marriage has been static in nature for time immemorial. Justice Kennedy raised this issue early in oral arguments. As reported in the Washington Post:

10:06 a.m.: Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who is believed to be the deciding vote in this case, quickly jumped in with a question about the long-standing view of marriage as between two members of the opposite sex. "The word that keeps coming back to me is ‘millennia,' " he said.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in the United States for only about a decade, since Massachusetts legalized it in 2006, Kennedy said. "I don't even know how to count the decimals," he said. "This definition has been with us for millennia."

Perhaps no one is better qualified to tackle this aspect of the case than Justice Ginsburg. As live-blogged by SCOTUSBlog:

One seemingly striking moment came when Justice Ginsburg spoke of how it was recent changes to the institution of marriage that made it appropriate for gay and lesbian couples -- in particular, it becoming an egalitarian institution rather than one dominated by the male partners who determined where and how the couple would live.

Indeed, the idea of marriage as the voluntary union of two lawful equals is hardly one that goes back millennia, or even to our nation's founding. For much of American history, women who got married actually lost their civil identities as individuals, being seen in the eyes of the law only as the wives of their husbands, who had all the legal rights. In the 19th century, it was considered a major reform to allow a woman to keep her own property in her own name after she married, rather than having it automatically transfer to her husband. A more recent reform is that a wife is not automatically considered to have given consent to her husband for sexual intercourse.

Marriage as it is practiced in our country is hardly millennia old. Much of what defined marriage in U.S. history would today be struck down as violating the rights of women under the 14th Amendment. When a New York court in the 1980s struck down that state's rape exemption that allowed men to rape their wives, the judge opened his opinion with quotation from John Stuart Mill's 1869 essay The Subjection of Women: "Marriage is the only actual bondage known to our law. There remain no legal slaves, except the mistress of every house."

But the court that struck down the spousal rape exemption more than a century after that was written was not engaged in an illegitimate "redefinition" of marriage. It was simply enforcing the 14th Amendment, as the Supreme Court is being asked to do today.

This post originally appeared on the blog of People For the American Way.

Justice Ginsburg Tackles Idea that Marriage Definition Has Existed for Millennia

Marriage as it existed for much of our nation's history violates the 14th Amendment, as does today's exclusion of same-sex couples from the institution.
PFAW Foundation

Janet Porter: Supreme Court Marriage Ruling Could Land Christians In Jail

After holding a press conference yesterday to promote her “restraining order” campaign to stop the federal courts from ruling on marriage cases, Faith 2 Action’s Janet Porter took a few minutes to speak with far-right pastor Wiley Drake about the effort.

Porter told Drake that the things she predicted in her 2005 book "The Criminalization of Christianity: Read This Book Before It Becomes Illegal!” are coming true, and that if the Supreme Court rules in favor of marriage equality, Christians will have to choose between obeying the ruling and going to jail.

“I’m telling you that if the court dares to issue another Roe v. Wade, in this case the Roe v. Wade for marriage, we will not obey it,” she said. “We’ll go to jail if we have to go to jail, but we will not bow to this agenda and violate our beliefs in God.”

“It’s happening in the state of Idaho,” she claimed. “They’re going after pastors in Idaho right now and saying, ‘Unless you oversee, participate in a homosexual wedding, we’re going to put you in jail.’”

Porter was referring to a case in Couer D’Alene in which the owners of a for-profit wedding chapel filed a lawsuit claiming that they could face decades of jail time for refusing to perform same-sex marriages, which did not turn out to be at all true.

This isn’t the first time that Porter has warned that advances in LGBT equality will land Christians in jail. In 2009, Porter warned that an LGBT-inclusive hate crimes law would send “ pastors to prison for biblical positions and speech,” a prediction that nearly six years later has not come to pass.

Staver: Impeach Supreme Court Justices Who 'Go Off The Farm' On Marriage

In an interview with Iowa-based conservative talk radio host Steve Deace on Friday, Liberty Counsel founder Mat Staver said that he supported Sen. Ted Cruz’s bill to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over marriage cases, but added that he also doesn’t think it’s a “state right” to rule on the issue.

“Same-sex marriage is not a state right, any more than it a right of the United States Supreme Court or the federal courts to do this,” he said. “It’s no more a states’ rights issue than is changing the natural created order of anything.”

“For example,” he continued, “slavery is not a states’ rights issue…No, the issue of slavery is something that transcends state borders. I don’t all the sudden become confused about male and female when I drive into California from a neighboring state of Texas. It’s the same in California as it is in Texas, as it is in New York, as it is in Iowa, everywhere around the world has been the same. It is not the right of the state, any more than it is the right of the federal courts or the Supreme Court to redefine the natural created order of marriage.”

Staver told Deace that “there’s a lot of remedies” Congress can pursue to “rein this out-of-control judiciary back to its intended purpose,” including dissolving lower federal courts that rule in ways lawmakers dislike on marriage and impeaching Supreme Court justices who “go off the farm” on the issue.

“There’s only one court that’s ever required by the United States Constitution,” Staver explained, “the Supreme Court of the United States. No other lower federal courts of appeals or district courts are required, they’re at the will of Congress. Congress created them, Congress can do away with them.”

“Congress, as this particular piece of legislation is proposing, can limit their jurisdiction,” he continued.
“Congress can also impeach justices of the United States Supreme Court that go off the farm. They should exercise the right of impeachment when these justices or judges become legislators, activists, ideologues rather than umpires calling the shots as the balls and strikes goes over the plate. When they do that, they need to exercise their authority to impeach.”

“When the people lose trust in the courts, the courts lose their authority,” he added. “Congress can simply resist these unjust laws coming from these courts and reign this out-of-control judiciary back in its intended position.”

Anti-Gay Activists Warn Supreme Court of 'Tyranny' & God's 'Wrath Upon America' Following Marriage Decision

In a press conference today in front of the Supreme Court, Faith 2 Action’s Janet Porter gathered a who’s who of radical anti-gay activists and “ex-gays” to deliver “restraining orders” to the Supreme Court demanding that the justices not hear arguments on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans.

Far from a far-right pipe dream, Porter’s bill to block federal courts from ruling on marriage was introduced last week by Rep. Steve King in the House and Sen. Ted Cruz in the Senate. “We have appealed to Congress to restrain the judges, and the good news is Congress has heard our cry,” Porter said.

The activists, including Scott Lively, Peter LaBarbera and Bill Owens, also announced that they were filing a motion asking Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan to recuse themselves from the case because they, in Lively’s words, “deliberately officiated at so-called homosexual wedding ceremonies.”

Ginsburg and Kagan, Lively charged, “have committed an unparalleled breach of judicial ethics by elevating the importance of their own favorite political cause of gay rights above the integrity of the court and of our nation.”

Porter distributed to attendees copies of her new anti-gay documentary “Light Wins,” which features a number of GOP politicians and conservative activists claiming that the institution of equal rights for LGBT people will lead to the “criminalization of Christianity,” a theme heard throughout the press conference.

Greg Quinlan, an “ex-gay” activist, echoed the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins , saying a Supreme Court decision in favor of marriage equality “will bring open season on Torah Jews and biblical Christians, and it will definitely bring open season on those of us who left homosexuality.”

Steven Hotze of Conservative Republicans of Texas, a Roy Moore acolyte who has been advocating for a bill in his state barring the use of funds to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples if the state’s marriage ban is struck down, declared that gay marriage is “not a marriage, it’s a mirage, because it’s counterfeit, it’s a lie, it’s untrue.”

A decision in favor of marriage equality, he warned, “would force individuals to have to condone, accept, even celebrate sexual immorality among certain elements of the population and teach it to the children.”

“It would criminalize Christianity,” he added. “The pastors would be forced to have to marry those of the same-sex.”

Peter LaBarbera, the head of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality declared that the Supreme Court is “poised to nationalize a historical anomaly, so-called marriage based on a sexual perversion, as a constitutional right.”

“A nation cannot simultaneously honor God and codify sexual sin as a supposed civil right,” he said, adding that “apparently the ‘T’ in LGBT stands for ‘tyranny.’”

Bill Johnson, a former state official with the American Family Association who now runs the American Decency Association, warned that a decision favorable to marriage equality would invite God’s "wrath upon America:

Meanwhile, Wiley Drake, a pastor who has prayed for President Obama’s death, was filming the whole event, at one point turning around to tell reporters that America has a Christian “birth certificate.”

“Our nation has a birth certificate. The president doesn’t, but our nation does.”

Jim Garlow: Marriage Equality Ruling Would Make Supreme Court 'The Laughingstock Of Historians And The World'

At today’s March for Marriage, Pastor Jim Garlow offered a lengthy explanation for why he believes marriage equality is wrong, asking the audience to repeat several Hebrew words found in Genesis before rearranging the letters to make the word “fire,” which of course proves that if you allow marriage equality you are going to Hell.

“You mess with the definition of marriage, and you burn, you’re toast, you can’t win that one,” he said.

This explanation is so obvious, he said, that if the Supreme Court rules in favor of marriage equality this year, it will soon become a “laughingstock” for having promoted the “ridiculous” idea of legal marriage for gay and lesbian people.

“Quoting from the Broadway musical, I would say this to the Supreme Court,” he said. “‘Your arms are too short to box with God.’ You can’t mess with Him. You can’t change the definition of marriage. If you try, they will laugh at you in 25 or 50 years. This Supreme Court, if they try to change that definition, they’ll be laughed at, they’ll be scoffed at. ‘How ridiculous was this notion?’ And this whole concept of so-called ‘same-sex marriage’ will be on the ash heap of history and the Supreme Court will be the laughingstock of historians and the world. They cannot change what God has established.”

Mat Staver: 'No Choice' But To Disobey Supreme Court Marriage Ruling

Speaking at the National Organization for Marriage’s March for Marriage today, Liberty Counsel founder Mat Staver repeated his frequent comparison of a potential Supreme Court ruling in favor of marriage equality to the infamous Dred Scott decision, declaring that he would have “no choice” but to disobey such a “lawless” decision.

Staver, who has recruited hundreds of anti-gay activists to sign onto a pledge to disobey a high court ruling in favor or marriage equality, told the crowd, “As someone who’s argued before the United States Supreme Court, I have great respect for this court, but have no respect and cannot respect a lawless decision.”

Saying that like Dred Scott, a decision in favor of marriage equality would be “contrary to the natural law of God,” Staver said, “As much as I’m an attorney and I respect the rule of law, I also respect the higher law. And when an earthly law collides with the higher law, we have no choice to obey the higher law.”

“Marriage is the union of a man and a woman,” he added. “As a policy matter, any other union says that God’s design is flawed. As a policy matter, any other union says that boys don’t need fathers and girls don’t need mothers.”

March For Marriage: 'It Was Adam And Eve, And Not Adam And Steve!'

There was a special tone of urgency at today’s March for Marriage, held just days before the Supreme Court hears arguments on the constitutionality of bans on gays and lesbians marrying, which even many marriage equality opponents believe may lead to a sweeping decision in favor of marriage rights.

Father Johannes Jacobse, an Orthodox priest from Florida, set the tone at the National Organization for Marriage’s event when he warned that if marriage equality becomes law, “in the end, the state will be telling you how to live and you will lose your freedom and the family will be weakened and the society will crumble and might even be destroyed.”

“God created the family,” he added. “In the beginning, in the beginning, it was Adam and Eve and not Adam and Steve!”


Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious