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.”
Fox News commentator Todd Starnes was a guest on the "Hagee Hotline" yesterday where he warned host Matthew Hagee that Christian pastors could soon find themselves arrested and charged with a hate crime for preaching from the Bible if the Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage.
"I do believe that if the Supreme Court does move forward and affirm this ruling," he said, "I suspect that it is going to open up the floodgates. And I believe, Pastor Matt, that you are going to see militant LGBT activists directly target churches and directly targeting pastors and I think that we, in the very near future, could see American pastors brought up on hate crime charges for preaching from the Bible":
Of course, this is exactly the same argument that anti-gay activists made before passage of hate crimes legislation back in 2009 and none of their fear-mongering warnings have come true. Nor has a single pastor faced this possibility in any of the 37 states where gay marriage is currently legal.
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.
For years we have been noting how Rev. Samuel Rodriguez has somehow managed to craft a reputation as a moderate and nonpartisan religious leader while simultaneously serving as a leading anti-gayReligious Right activist.
Nothing better illustrates this duality than the fact that Rodriguez was among those who have signed the right-wing pledge never to accept any Supreme Court ruling in favor of gay marriage and today announced that the board of his organization, the National Hispanic Leadership Council, has unanimously signed it as well:
Today, the board of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Counsel-CONEL [sic] unanimously voted to sign the Marriage Pledge. NHCLC-CONEL represents 40,118 Evangelical Hispanic churches in America and about 500,000 in Latin America and Spain. The unanimous vote occurred at the board meeting in Houston while the Supreme Court was hearing oral arguments on the marriage case. NHCLC-CONEL’s board is comprised of 140 members.
NHCLC-CONEL is headed by Rev. Samuel Rodriguez. CNN, Fox News, NBC/Telemundo, Time magazine, and The Wall Street Journal have identified Rodriguez as one of the most influential Hispanic evangelical leaders in America.
Elsewhere today, Rodriguez was quoted in a Time magazine piece saying that he does not think that conservatives will react to such a Supreme Court ruling by demanding that it be overturned:
A longtime opponent of same-sex marriage, Pastor Samuel Rodriguez gave a benediction at the last Republican National Convention, sits on the executive board of the National Association of Evangelicals and will host two likely presidential candidates, Jeb Bush and Mike Huckabee, at a gathering of 1,000 Hispanic leaders in Texas on Wednesday.
But if you ask the founder of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference how Republicans should react if the U.S. Supreme Court decides to legalize gay marriage nationwide this year, he doesn’t toe a very hard line. “The Republican position will not be, ‘We will fight arduously to turn back what the Supreme Court has ruled,’ ” he said. “I don’t think you will hear that at all, as a matter of fact.”
Rodriguez and his organization have both signed on to a pledge vowing never to accept such a ruling because "redefining marriage is so fundamental to the natural order and the common good that this is the line we must draw and one we cannot and will not cross" while, at the same time, he is telling Time that fighting against the legalization of gay marriage will not really be an important issue for conservatives.
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.
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."
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.
“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.’”
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.
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.”
As the Supreme Court prepares for arguments about the right to marry, PFAW Foundation Senior Fellow Jamie Raskin says our country may be “on the verge of a historic breakthrough.”
On Thursday, PFAW hosted a telebriefing for members and supporters on this historic moment in anticipation of oral arguments in the Supreme Court marriage cases (Obergefell v. Hodges) next week. PFAW Executive Vice President Marge Baker moderated a conversation among affiliate PFAW Foundation Senior Fellows Jamie Raskin and Elliot Mincberg as well as People For supporters who called in to join the discussion.
In the telebriefing, Raskin and Mincberg unpacked some of the questions before the court — not only whether states can prohibit same-sex couples from marrying or refuse to recognize marriages from other states — but also the implications of the various types of reasoning the justices may use to reach their decision.
They also reflected on the remarkable social transformation our country has seen on the rights of LGBT people. Raskin remembered that the 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick decision, which upheld the criminalization of “sodomy,” came out while he was in law school. With the Court’s steady march away from that kind of legal reasoning, he said, “there’s no going back from here.”
Mincberg pointed out that, unfortunately, the backlash has started before the Supreme Court even decides the cases. With “right to discriminate” legislation pending in more than a dozen states and a handful considering “marriage refusal” bills, it’s clear that the far Right is already forging ahead with a nationwide push to undermine the expanding rights of LGBT Americans.
Call participants shared some great questions and opinions, including a retired pediatric doctor who asked why the principles accepted by the medical community to take care of your patients rather than question or judge them have not been accepted by the political community as well.
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.”
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.”
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.”
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!”
Laurie Roth warns that Christianity will be criminalized if the Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage.
Steve McConkey of 4 Winds Christian Athletics worries that "Bruce Jenner's interview with Diane Sawyer on 20/20 will be glorified by the LGBTQ movement."
BarbWire's Gina Miller declares that "Our nation has become a lunatic."
Richard Land says that American Christians are the real victims of discrimination: "It's ugly; it's thuggish; it's brutish. It's the totalitarian left in all of its ugly face."
Finally, Phil Burress and the Citizens for Community Values Action PAC have turned against Ben Carson because Carson endorsed Rob Portman, whom CCV is working to defeat in the GOP primary: "[I]f you come out and endorse a candidate who believes in same-sex marriage, then that pretty much puts you into the same camp."
Likely GOP presidential candidates Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee have joined more than 200 anti-gay activists in signing a pledge vowing to resist any Supreme Court ruling in favor of marriage equality.
Comparing any sweeping decision in favor of marriage equality to the Dred Scott case, the activists vow that they will not recognize such a decision and indicate that they would try to convince national and state executive branches not to enforce it.
We stand together in defense of marriage and the family and society founded upon them. While we come from a variety of communities and hold differing faith perspectives, we are united in our common affirmation of marriage.
On the matter of marriage, we stand in solidarity. We affirm that marriage and family have been inscribed by the Divine Architect into the order of Creation. Marriage is ontologically between one man and one woman, ordered toward the union of the spouses, open to children and formative of family. Family is the first vital cell of society, the first government, and the first mediating institution of our social order. The future of a free and healthy society passes through marriage and the family.
Marriage as existing solely between one man and one woman precedes civil government. Though affirmed, fulfilled, and elevated by faith, the truth that marriage can exist only between one man and one woman is not based on religion or revelation alone, but on the Natural Law, written on the human heart and discernible through the exercise of reason. It is part of the natural created order. The Natural Law is what Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., referred to as a higher law or a just law in his famous Letter from Birmingham Jail.
Marriage is the preeminent and the most fundamental of all human social institutions. Civil institutions do not create marriage nor can they manufacture a right to marry for those who are incapable of marriage. Society begins with marriage and the family.
We pledge to stand together to defend marriage for what it is, a bond between one man and one woman, intended for life, and open to the gift of children.
The institutions of civil government should defend marriage and not seek to undermine it. Government has long regulated marriage for the true common good. Examples, such as the age of consent, demonstrate such a proper regulation to ensure the free and voluntary basis of the marriage bond. Redefining the very institution of marriage is improper and outside the authority of the State. No civil institution, including the United States Supreme Court or any court, has authority to redefine marriage.
As citizens united together, we will not stand by while the destruction of the institution of marriage unfolds in this nation we love. The effort to redefine marriage threatens the essential foundation of the family.
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. The precedent established will leave no room for any limitation on what can constitute such a redefined notion of marriage or human sexuality. 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.
Conferring a moral and legal equivalency to any relationship other than marriage between a man and a woman, by legislative or judicial fiat, sends the message that children do not need a mother and a father. As a policy matter, such unions convey the message that moms and dads are completely irrelevant to the well-being of children. Such a policy statement is unconscionable and destructive. Authorizing the legal equivalency of marriage to same-sex couples undermines the fundamental rights of children and threatens their security, stability, and future.
Neither the United States Supreme Court nor any court has authority to redefine marriage and thereby weaken both the family and society. Unlike the Legislative Branch that has the power of the purse and the Executive Branch which has the figurative power of the sword, the Judicial Branch has neither. It must depend upon the Executive Branch for the enforcement of its decisions.
As the Supreme Court acknowledged in the 1992 decision of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, its power rests solely upon the legitimacy of its decisions in the eyes of the people. If the decisions of the Court are not based on the Constitution and reason, and especially if they are contrary to the natural created order, then the people will lose confidence in the Court as an objective arbiter of the law. If the people lose respect for the Court, the Court’s authority will be diminished.
The Supreme Court was wrong when it denied Dred Scott his rights and said, “blacks are inferior human beings.” And the Court was wrong when Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in Buck v. Bell, “three generations of imbeciles are enough,” thus upholding Virginia’s eugenics law that permitted forced sterilization. Shamefully, that decision was cited during the Nuremburg trials to support the Nazi eugenic holocaust.
In these earlier cases, the definition of “human” was at issue. Now the definition of “marriage” is at issue. The Constitution does not grant a right to redefine marriage — which is nonsensical since marriage intrinsically involves a man and a woman. Nor does the Constitution prohibit states from affirming the natural created order of male and female joined together in marriage.
We will view any decision by the Supreme Court or any court the same way history views the Dred Scott and Buck v. Bell decisions. Our highest respect for the rule of law requires that we not respect an unjust law that directly conflicts with higher law. A decision purporting to redefine marriage flies in the face of the Constitution and is contrary to the natural created order. As people of faith we pledge obedience to our Creator when the State directly conflicts with higher law. We respectfully warn the Supreme Court not to cross this line.
We stand united together in defense of marriage. 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 common good that this is the line we must draw and one we cannot and will not cross.
This morning, James Dobson, Mat Staver, and Rick Scarborough organized a press conference at the National Press club in support of their pledge to refuse to accept any Supreme Court ruling that legalizes gay marriage.
During his remarks, Scarborough declared that marriage equality is an attack on God and dismissed the idea that the majority of Americans support gay marriage by asserting that a majority of Americans once also supported segregation.
"I am not surprised that some recent polls have shown that a majority of Americans now say they approve of same-sex marriage," he said. "We have heard a steady drum beat for the last decade of a one-sided national discussion on the subject. But there was also a time when the majority of Americans in this country approved of separate restrooms and separate classrooms for black American citizens. The majority often gets it wrong."
"Marriage can no more include same-sex couples than a rock can fall up," Scarborough continued. "The court can no more redefine marriage than it can redefine gravity ... Today I declare before Heaven, I will no deny God, nor His word to curry any man's favor. With great caution should anyone indulge the notion that one can change what God has said ... To deny the created order is to attack God's very nature":
“In my view, when you stand up for marriage as the union of a man and a woman, you are standing up for civil rights,” he said. “You’re standing up for the civil rights of children, you’re standing up for the rights of the oppressed, you’re standing up for the one institution that we know has done the best in combatting poverty, in increasing the opportunity for educational attainment. This is the ideal structure in which to raise children and altering it or trying to even more transform it by moving forward with same-sex marriage will be and has been profoundly damaging.”
“And I’m only now talking about what occurs to children, what happens in our schools,” he continued, “and I’m not even touching on the consequences to the church itself and to individuals through undermining religious liberty, which we’ve seen time and time again when same-sex marriage is imposed on states.”
Comparing the March for Marriage to the marches of the civil rights movement, Brown warned that “the freedom of the church to spread the Gospel” is at stake if marriage equality is legalized nationwide.
“The freedom of the church to speak truth to power, the freedom of the church to spread the Gospel, that itself is at stake because you have a growing number of folks even within Congress who think it’s okay to talk about stripping the church of its 501(c)3 status or saying that somehow the church is discriminating when it says this is the truth about marriage,” he said. “That is not discriminating.”
“You know, folks supporting same-sex marriage are trying to hijack the civil rights movement to use it to support the redefinition of marriage,” he added. “That’s not what the civil rights movement was about. In truth, we’re standing for civil rights when we’re standing for the truth of marriage. We’re standing for the rights of churches to proclaim the Gospel.”
Later in the program, Brown told Poindexter that he feels “blessed to have played some role” in the “rainbow coalition” opposing marriage equality. He added that the “rainbow coalition” will stay together even if the Supreme Court issues a sweeping ruling for marriage rights because such a ruling would merely “be putting a lie into the law.”
“The Supreme Court will be putting a lie into the law if they say that somehow all the states need to redefine marriage,” he said. “Marriage is still the union of a man and a woman, we just have a lie embedded in our law. And it will be up to us to continue to grow, continue to work together, and continue to proclaim truth to power if the courts were to put that sort of lie into law.”