Religious right threatens Supreme Court on gay marriage

In a rather inappropriate move, America’s top anti-gay religious right leaders, including five officially-designated “hate groups,” have signed an anti-gay-marriage statement that appears to be a threat directed at the justices sitting on the US Supreme Court.


The statement expresses concern over the Supreme Court’s expected upcoming decision on two high-profile gay marriage cases concerned the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and Prop 8.  It goes on to say that the Supreme Court had better not legalize gay marriage (no one expects it to), and that if it does the religious right leaders will not accept the court’s rule, and the court will at the same time undermine its credibility and legitimacy.

The signatories including the heads of the Family Research Council*, American Family Association*, Catholic League, Concerned Women for America, Traditional Values Coalition*, Illinois Family Institute*, anti-gay bigot Peter LaBarbera’s Americans for the Truth About Homosexuality*, and oddly, far-right Web site WorldNetDaily.  The statement has an additional, larger, number of b-list anti-gay signatories.  (Those organizations with an asterisk have been officially-designated as “hate groups” by the Southern Poverty Law Center.)

Anti-gay protester outside the Supreme Court's DOMA and Prop 8 oral arugments. © John Aravosis 2013

Anti-gay protester outside the Supreme Court’s DOMA and Prop 8 oral arugments. © John Aravosis 2013.   See my entire Supreme Court gay marriage photo essay.

What’s really going on here, in my opinion, in addition to religious right leaders admitting publicly that they do not believe in democracy in general, and in America’s democracy and our system of governance as laid out in the Constitution, in particular, is a not-so-subtle last-ditch effort to pressure the Supreme Court to rule against gays in the DOMA and Prop 8 cases.

First, a few quotes from the statement, then some analysis of what the religious right hopes to achieve:

As Christian citizens united together, we will not stand by while the destruction of the institution of marriage unfolds in this nation we love….

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

Finally, the Supreme Court has no authority to redefine marriage and thereby weaken both the family and society….

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

It’s difficult to explain to a non-lawyer, but it’s considered incredibly rude to attempt to “lobby” the Supreme Court.  And to threaten them is even more low-brow.  The appropriate way to “lobby” the Supreme Court is by filing an amicus brief, or at best going on TV or penning an oped and hoping a Supreme Court Justice happens to see it.  But you don’t outright threaten them.  It’s not just poor form and boorish, it’s considered un-Democratic.  Courts of law, the Supreme Court especially, are not supposed to respond to the whims of the people.  They’re supposed to do what’s right under the law.

A straight biracial couple protesting in favor of gay marriage across the street from Supreme Court.

A straight biracial couple protesting in favor of gay marriage across the street from Supreme Court. © John Aravosis 2013 See my entire Supreme Court gay marriage photo essay.

Having said that, clearly the religious right is playing on the court’s well-known concern about getting too far ahead of the popular culture on hotly-contested social issues, as some feel it did with Roe v. Wade in 1973.  Thus, this is an attempt to “play the refs” but claiming – incorrectly – that this is Roe all over again.

Except it’s not.  While the religious right hates gay people, most Americans do not.  Even on “contentious” issues like gay marriage, consistently more than half the population is now in favor, with young people overwhelming in favor – meaning, it’s only a matter of time.

And while the religious right is willing to threaten to disobey the Supreme Court’s ruling on this matter, most Americans actually accept the rule of law, and more importantly, believe in our system of governance, which includes an independent judiciary.  The religious and its Republican party overlords (though lately it seems that it’s the religious right lording over the GOP), don’t like arbiters that they can’t control.  It’s why they’ve tried to either destroy the uncontrollable and/or rebuild it in their own image.

The religious right Phelps clan protesting outside the Supreme Court during the DOMA and Prop 8 oral arguments.  © John Aravosis 2013

The religious right Phelps clan protesting outside the Supreme Court during the DOMA and Prop 8 oral arguments. © John Aravosis 2013 See my entire Supreme Court gay marriage photo essay.

For example, if the media is refusing to report your lies as truth, create your own “media” in Fox News.  And if the courts are refusing to oppress blacks, gays, women and Latinos, either create your own courts, so to speak, by packing them with your own judges while stopping the other party from nominating its own, trying to pressure the justices such as with this religious right gay marriage statement, passing laws that take jurisdiction away from courts on issues that you’re sure to lose, or simply so berating the courts over time that the majority of the country ignores them.

Republicans have tried all three.  This latest attempt is a mix of pushing people to ignore the court, and trying to publicly pressure the court.  But at its core, it’s a combination of playing the refs, and not even accepting the legitimacy of the refs in the first place.  In much the same way that Republicans have questioned the legitimacy of Democratic presidents Clinton (with the never-ending investigations and impeachment) and Obama (with the birthers and now the investigations).

Republicans have found that when they play fair, they lose.  So instead, they play foul.

Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

  • David Lynd

    Only the descendants of Kane will Condone, Cause & Commit MURDER !

  • Importance of Mehndi in Indian Weddings.

    Indian marriages are known for their many rituals. In fact, the beauty of Indian weddings comes forth in the numerous traditions that are associated with the special celebration. Marriages being the most important day in one’s life, mehndi has become an ornament for the soon to be brides. Infact one whole ceremony dedicated to its celebration popularly known as “Mehndi Ki Raat”. Indian marriages are incomplete without dance, music and lots of laughter.

    It is a common belief that the darker the color the mehndi leaves on the hands on a bride, the more will she be loved by her husband and mother-in-law. However, the significance of applying mehndi during weddings is not restricted just to sentiments and beliefs. Although these beliefs make the application of mehndi a much anticipated and charming tradition, the actual reason is of much deeper significance. Platform for Happiness

  • Scripter
  • Tijerina


  • Badgerite

    I think you are talking about Christ, whom the Romans killed, not the Jews.
    I don’t care to go after a whole belief system of various people’s, I just don’t want to expect me to ignore what I know to be just and true because ‘the Bible say’s’. For me, that’s not good enough.

  • Dakotahgeo

    Yeah, lolol… I’m not sure what Becca is getting at, lolol. Seriously, I hope we can soon start memorizing, “Madam President Clinton,” ASAP!

  • Dakotahgeo

    Observing what they use today, there isn’t much left to explode!

  • Dakotahgeo

    ROFLMBO!!! Just give them an IQ test before you breed with them! Room temperature is great but it doesn’t do much for the gene pool.

  • Dakotahgeo

    Either that or they came without screws in the first place!

  • Dakotahgeo

    I cannot believe (well, yes, I guess I can) that you are still muttering your garbage to an ever decreasing number of anti-everything numb nuts! Do you not understand that when >400 blokes attend a christian faith and freedom conference (when you expected 1000’s!) that something is sorely amiss in your message? Even your idiot followers are getting tired of the same old diatribe.

    We had an interesting discussion on marriage in our Sunday school class and I shared this hooting faith and freedom petition and we could not believe that anyone would threaten the SCOTUS, no less. These backward people have probably ensured that the SCOTUS will indeed rule in favor of DOMA and Prop 8 defeat!
    My main question, as was that of the class, “What the heck is this group going to do about it if the SCOTUS DOES INDEED find DOMA and Prop 8 unconstitutional? Based on my observations of the United States citizen in general, probably not a damn thing!!

  • John, didn’t we (speaking historically) see all this reactionary garble from the hicks and crackers against the Warren Court? Then along came Richard “Law and Order” Nixon, who placed four justices on the Court to slant it to the right since 1972. The fact remains that they have the “power of the gavel”, which balances not only the other two branches, but also the reactionaries.

  • Probably hiding from the big bad wolf…

  • On the contrary with respect to Hitchens’ points–

    The Bible is quite clear on the topics of cruelty towards children, the act of rape, the institution of slavery, and the commission of genocide: It is in favor of all those things, positions backed by frequent intonations that they are specifically commanded by the “the Lord your God.”

    As I remarked yesterday with the quote from Deuteronomy, whenever the tribe of Israelites decides to attack a city, all its inhabitants are to be consigned to slavery. If they resist, the men are all to be killed (genocide) and the women and children taken as plunder (rape and slavery).

    When this deity wasn’t micromanaging agricultural and dietary practices, he was apparently on a bloodthirsty rampage, dispensing other people’s lands, properties, and even the people themselves to this marauding tribe of genocide-minded nomads.

    Some of the Bible is a recounting of the myths of pre-science ignorant humans, and some of it a rather biased historical account. And there’s a lovely bit towards the end about this fellow who wanted to reform his people’s religion — and had some amazingly ahead-of-his-time progressive ideas — and was literally crucified for his effrontery towards the oligarchic status quo. The rest of it is an “appeal to irrefutable authority” (also known rhetorically as “borrowed authority,” and considered a phony debating technique) to justify extreme penalties for minor violations of Bronze-age cultural norms specific to one small group of people, as well as justifying horrific crimes against humanity.

  • geoffalnutt

    The religious right proves (once again) that their hate is (much) stronger than love. Nothing has changed in thousands and thousands of years. It’s the same fearful, ‘us-against-them’ mentality they’ve always hid behind. Cowards and bullies. Yawn.

  • Rule #2: Anybody who habitually uses unnecessary capitalization for nouns when expressing a bizarre and patently illogical polemic very likely has more than a few loose screws.

  • rotfl!!!

  • Immutable rule number 1: Lions and Tigers and Bears, Oh My!

  • I suspect he has an entire attic full of ’em.

  • Badgerite

    God does not ‘hate fags’. You ‘hate fags’ and you want to use God to absolve you of the personal responsibility of that hateful choice. Someone recently quoted me ‘the Bible says’ again about this particular issue. The ‘Bible says’ a lot of things and one of them is seeming to sanction slavery, since some of the instruction laid out by Moses from God included that you shall not only not work yourself on the Sabbath but that you shall not let your slaves work on the Sabbath either. This is why the South always maintained that slavery was just fine with God and God was on their side. How is it that God didn’t think to mention that slavery was wrong in the instructions on the Ten Commandments. Did he forget? He thought to mention coveting things but he forgot to mention just in passing that enslaving your fellow man is wrong? Now, you can tell me that a ‘holy book’ was ‘inspired’ by God but please don’t tell me it was dictated by God and all the ridiculous instructions and prohibitions that it frequently contains are actually from God as opposed to from man. If that were actually the case it would make God quite the immoral bastard. The Bible also mentions something about killing witches. So, God thinks there are witches? Bare with me, I’m going to quote from Christopher Hitchens book here:

    Then there is the very salient question of what the commandments do Not say. Is it too modern to notice that there is nothing about the protection of children from cruelty, nothing about rape, nothing about slavery, and nothing about genocide? Or is it too exactingly “in context” to notice that some of these very offenses are about to be positively recommended? In verse 2 of the immediately following chapter, god tells Moses to instruct his followers about the conditions under which they may buy or sell slaves (or bore their ears through with an awl) and the rules governing the sale of their daughters. This is succeeded by the insanely detailed regulations governing oxes that gore and are gored, and including the notorious verses forfeiting “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth.” Micromanagement of agricultural disputes breaks off for a moment, with the abrupt verse (22:18) “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” This was, for centuries, the warrant for the Christian torture and burning of women who did not conform.

    He makes a good point, don’t you think?

  • silas1898

    School integration and inter-racial marriage did not have majority public support at the time of those rulings, to name a couple.

  • silas1898

    They would simply deny it and wait for the “real” heaven and jesus to show up. Facts are meaningless to this crowd.

  • UncleBucky

    They won’t marry members of the same sex? Hmmm….

  • Butch1

    Isn’t that the truth!

  • Buford

    It never ceases to amaze me how attractive these ‘anti-gay’ idiots find the gay lifestyle… since they are convinced that once gays can obtain the civil benefits of marriage, nobody would want to marry someone of the opposite sex ever again!

  • Buford

    Pretty simple. Any decision with which they disagree is an ‘invalid’ decision in their eyes… they don’t even attempt to understand that rulings/laws in our society should support the majority view. If they don’t agree with it, it is invalid – period.

  • UncleBucky


  • Buford

    “Marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman… and sometimes a hooker in Vegas”.

    Best t-shirt ever.

  • UncleBucky

    That’s OK. Females, or women, generally make for better government. Generally, I say, since there are some females in our governments that clearly are outliers, haha!

  • Buford

    Bring it on.

  • UncleBucky

    They never do. Using a Jesus of their own making, they completely forget the Great Commandment, don’t they? ;o)

  • Buford

    I had the same question… exactly how do they plan to ‘not abide’ by such a ruling?

  • UncleBucky

    Strawmen live in your house?

  • Buford

    I don’t get it. There’s lots of insider legalese here regarding procedure and protocol, but the nutshell for me is that there is no valid logic being argued here. Religions can define marriage however they choose, and their followers can choose to abide by those guidelines or disagree with them by leaving that religion.

    The Supreme Court, on the other hand, is simply defining who is/not legally married in the eyes of the state… that is, which combinations of consenting adults will be allowed to legally merge and obtain the civil benefits of such combinations.

    Why in Hell is is even plausible for religious groups to potentially influence who the state considers legally merged or not?

  • Number Six

    That’s something I can look forward to

  • kevinbgoode

    What a crock of manure. For one thing, to even consider there are two “genders” solely disguishable by their physical body parts and reproductive organs is an insult to civilization and to Mankind. Everyone knows, including all of the established laws in the various states of this country and most nations of the world, that reproduction is NOT of itself the sole basis for “marraige” – and if you REALLY believed it was, the wingnut clown empire would have been hissing to dispose of elderly marriages and marriages between those who choose or cannot have children. Since those allowances have been on the books for many decades (clearly without a peep from the gaggle of con-artist right-wing smokescreen organizations) this big nonsensical claim of yours is fairly meaningless.

    It never fails to amaze me how low some breeders will stoop to defend all of their special rights laws they’ve been writing into the books for a couple of centuries – all to benefit themselves at the expense and cost of every other citizen. That’s why I always laugh when some yahoo talks about gays wanting “special rights” – cuz it is always coming from someone who has been supporting special rights for themselves for centuries, and making up fairy tales to justify them.

    How about a constitutional amendment where we put every one of those special marriage right laws up to a public vote for a change, instead of just the phony marriage-is-suddenly-important-and-so sanctimonious-that-we-all-need-to-vote-on-the-rights-of-those-“icky”-gays line of crap we’ve been handed over the last ten years?

    If you want to take the line of reasoning that we have to all support some bogus notion of reproduction-only as the basis for “the formula” – er- marriage – then you’ve got millions of childless Americans who have a bone to pick with you and your kind. Stop expecting us to pay for those breeder kid’s education, their religious indoctrination, their incarcerations when they commit a crime, and their dependency on the rest of us for support. It’s about time the rest of us had a say in how Mankind’s future is formed, and civilization is more than ready for something beyond sanctifying the union between two hicks consummated after drinking a twelve-pack as “the formula” for the future of Mankind and calling it “marriage.”

  • BloggerDave

    I am very glad that you are so afraid… LOL…

  • The day we get cloning tech far enough along so that gay and lesbian couples can have genetically biological children, the bigots’ heads will explode.

  • Number Six

    I’m a big fan of parthenogenesis, myownself. For one thing, it only produces females!

  • pappyvet

    LOL !!! Come on Becca,tell them how you really feel !

  • Mike_in_the_Tundra

    IMHO, the issue of marriage equality is not about right or benefits, it’s about love. You had no mention of love.

  • Marriage isn’t entirely about breeding, ignoramus. We don’t limit it only to fertile brood pairs.

    Also: IVF and artificial insemination. Seems to me we women really only need a few men around to provide sperm. Don’t worry, we’ll keep your barn stalls fresh and clean.

  • ericxdc


  • Mostly, yes.

  • daniwitz13

    This issue of Same Sex Marriages is not about Rights, Benefits and Equality under the Constitution. It is about altering the Formula of our Civilization and Mankind, the basis of our Society. Our Specie has only two Genders, a Male and Female. It being perfect Equality, to pair them in a formula for our Mankind. This Immutable Formula has miraculously produced Mankind for Millions of years. Now in the present year of 2013, Nine Learned and Intelligent Men and Women Judges, are considering altering this formula by adding an Aberrant Formula that does not work to the one that does. That Formula that has no Future, be added to the Formula that IS our Future. To alter and add to a simple Immutable Formula now, is to make it complex with multiple Genders possible in the Future and altering our Society. E.g. One Man marrying 5 men. It is not a task to rule in favor of the Formula that brought us from the Past and can take us into the Future. This, for the Survival of our Civilization and Mankind, is a mandate for the Judges to consider.

  • BillFromDover

    Gave it up?

  • BillFromDover

    Unfortunately, when yer gone, yer gone; worm dirt… kaput!

    However, wouldn’t it be great if the conscience lasted just long enough got the brainwashed to discover the ultimate truth?

  • Yeah. ‘Love’ is the absolute last thing on their tiny minds and in their blackened hearts.

  • BillFromDover

    “Finally, the Supreme Court has no authority to redefine marriage “

    Er… who defined it in the 1st place?

    Better be very, very careful here.

  • Butch1

    “As Christian citizens united together, we will not stand by while the destruction of the institution of marriage unfolds in this nation we love….”

    Does the look on that hateful girl’s face look like a “loving christian” following the words of her Messiah? If one painted long ears on her she would look like a donkey getting ready to bray. There is nothing “christian” about her and holding that sign is about the most unchristian thing she could be doing in the name of Jesus. What a hateful young “lady.”

  • kevinbgoode

    I’ve got news for these nutjobs – I’ve never known anyone who gives a damn whether someone else’s “religion” or “church” recognizes their marriage or not – that’s why marriage is considered a highly PERSONAL endeavor, not the domain of some made-up wingnut “religion” whose primary existence is dependent upon the legal persecution of gay Americans and women.

    It behooves me how anyone takes these political clowns seriously, especially when they invoke their phony “Christian” credentials. Why, several states have passed special “marriage” laws (much touted by religious hypocrite Mike Huckabee), instituting the wingnut-preferred “covenant” marriages to adhere more closely to these special rights-for-their-personally-chosen-beliefs-only “religious” fanatics, and barely 1% of these self-proclaimed “Christians” are willing to adhere to stricter, more biblically-correct marriage regulations themselves.

    In other words, even when they redefine marriage more closely to their own claims of religious sanctity, these professional liars can’t convince the flock to take any personal responsibility for their so-called “Christian” beliefs. Clearly, those beliefs are only intended to be imposed on other people, and their only fear of pretentious loss of “religious freedom” is the power to legally dictate their beliefs about others onto the rest of the population.

    You notice how you never hear any spokesmodel for these smokescreen wingnut groups talking about how they are willing to adhere to their Church’s dictates about marriage rather than the State’s – even though they are free to do so. Just as their bogus “church” is free to not marry anyone they don’t wish to recognize – as churches have done for centuries.

  • Thanks. It infuriates me when the Christobigots spout their lies about marriage always having been this immutable ‘institution’, that there’s never been any socially accepted marital model other than serial heterosexual monogamy between consenting adults, when it’s bloody self-evident this isn’t even close to being true.

    And in many cases, ancient cultures such as the Celts only adopted the Christian model after they were conquered and these laws were imposed upon them. Hell, lots of folks rag on the Mormons — but it cannot be denied that it was once a tenet of their religious faith that they practice polygamy, and they gave it up only for political reasons.

  • pappyvet

    I agree Becca,I should have explained myself better about them not really being Americans. I suppose I’m showing my ass a bit because I feel that being a disabled American Veteran,I like to think that I fought for Everyone. And that includes everyone’s beliefs. Not the right to impose one’s beliefs on someone else. As I have said before,it does not matter to me what beliefs a person holds that gives them peace. But when you try to twist arms,lie, and cause great harm as the protesters at many a Veteran’s funeral have done, I must think that “We the People” is not with them.

  • Gary Harmer

    It’s going to be downright funny when these bigoted idiots die and find out that there isn’t any god… no heaven… no hell… just their own karma to deal with… ! This is a gathering of the ignorant and stupid who have been TAUGHT to hate, mostly from their dear old mommys and daddys. I say fuck them all!

  • BlueIdaho

    Excellent points BeccaM; all of them. I recently met an American Indian here in Idaho who is lesbian and also a shaman. She is totally fascinating and totally accepted and revered by her people.

  • lynchie

    The same religious scum are trying to exert their will on Congress and on the country regarding Roe vs. Wade. Religion has no place in the laws of a country. The bible does not rule anything but the simpletons who wish to follow the greatest book of fiction ever written. If they like go off to an island or country and run their lives in the 13th century. No electricity, no computers, marry their daughters, kill anyone they deem a witch or warlock and leave the rest of us in peace, but they insist on all the amenities the modern world enjoys but like to pick and choose who to hate, protect the fetus but shit on the children who go to beg hungry, preach tolerance and go after the gay community, talk about the bible as some golden tome but selectively find passages that support their twisted view. God speaks to the ministers as if they are that important. They sell their holy water, send money for riches, time share in some bogus scam but of the spirit of the big head in the sky shall rule you but not them.

  • Snarki, child of Loki

    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.

    Yet, somehow, they still went ahead with Bush v. Gore, in spite of a clear mechanism and procedure detailed in the US constitution for dealing with electoral disputes; such mechanism having NO ROLE for the Supreme Court.

    If the reichtards don’t like the ruling on Prop8, whatever it may be, or on Obamacare, they have the votes in the House, they can impeach Roberts whenever they want. And probably get a few sympathetic Dems to vote on their side, too. GO FOR IT!

  • You’re right — sorry, I should have. My bad. Since the index pages have returned to normal, I’m guessing you found and fixed what went wrong.

    I’ll email you a more detailed response.

  • Oh, I know. Some of what’s in that last part are things the bigots and misogynists would like to re-impose. Repealing domestic violence laws and returning women to the status of chattel. Banning interracial marriage again.

    I’m not sure if I’d agree they’re “not really Americans” as that goes to the “No true Scotsman” fallacy. Unfortunately, this is exactly what is in the hearts of many Americans: Hatred, intolerance, racism, and misogyny — as well as homophobic bigotry. In the last several decades, we’ve seen a surge of jingoistic nationalism, and the assertion that this country should be run as an anti-science authoritarian theocracy.

    Many nations in the world became known for a while as beacons of democratic, secular rule, only to be dragged back into Bronze age sensibilities by their own people.

  • tcwaters

    I think you miss how this threat eta them up to claim a victory. If the court rules as expected, the far right can claim that they stopped a more expansive ruling. I’ve written a longer commentary on my blog:

  • I figure anybody, whether they like it or not, who quotes the Bible as to why they hate gay people is also tacitly in favor of slavery, genocide, and the casual application of executions for the mildest violations of Bronze age cultural norms.

    If they’re going to use the assertion of an infallible (yet much mis-translated) Bible as their justification for making moral pronouncements on how everybody else must live, I in turn insist they take responsibility for all of it.

    Most often, I’ll ask if they’ve ever worked on a Saturday (which technically is the ‘real’ Sabbath day). If the answer is ‘yes’ — and it always is — I then ask if they’ll stay put while I round up a mob for the obligatory stoning to death.

  • What, exactly, is the “problem” Roe v. Wade created for America or the Supreme Court?

    Is anyone seriously arguing that back-alley abortions with coathangers would have caused less unrest?

  • I also have no idea what an index page is or a blog summary page Can someone email me and tell me in detail, in layman’s terms, what you’re seeing?

  • I had no idea until someone just emailed. Please email me about things like this in the future, I don’t always see every comment.

  • enriquesanchez

    Let’s hope the whole things BACKFIRES on them all.

    Let’s hope the ENTIRE Supreme Court is profoundly offended by this arrogant effrontery!

  • pappyvet

    Absolutely brilliant Becca ! It is unfortunately true that much of what you have listed is exactly the kind of world these people want to make.

  • to_tell_the_truth

    And New York City.

  • lynchie

    I am so lost by their hatred. Equality does not threaten Christianity. It doesn’t threaten the act of marriage, its not as if Gay marriage will stop two heteros from getting wed. The marriage does not require a church, in fact I am surprised anyone would want a church wedding after the hatred and bigotry the various religions have exhibited. I haven’t been to church for 50 years and fail to see how equality threatens the churches. I have asked some bigots i work with what the big deal is and they resort to quoting the bible and their minister. My reply at first was, well does it say anything in the bible about priests raping kids, or anything about the various ministries running scams, hooking up with hookers, etc. They have no answer. It actually makes me despair about the intelligence of these so called christians, are their lives so shallow that they will take to demonstrate about this issue but not about the bankers not going to jail, about the 1% not wanting to share their good fortune, about the poor and elderly without healthcare. I call bullshit to this god thing and to the concept of christianity. It is not about acts of kindness but about acts of hatred and bigotry. I actually think these line in the sand they have drawn will drive many more away from their cause, drive many more to question the whole 10 commandment crap which few follow.

    This is about hate pure and simple and they have to have someone to hate, gay, black, yellow, latino, muslim, crippled, old, poor, women, you name it and they hate it. In fact I must say they should hate themselves for their failure to move past their bigotry.

  • rmthunter

    A point that John made that I think needs to be emphasized:

    “. . . religious right leaders admitting publicly that they do not believe in democracy in general, and in America’s democracy and our system of governance as laid out in the Constitution, in particular. . .”

    The revolutionary concept in the creation of the United States was the idea that society would be ruled by laws created by the people through their elected representatives, measured against the Constitution, and not the will of kings or oligarchs. Here we have a group of religious fanatics (well, some of them — most of them, as far as I can tell, are just con artists, but I suspect all of them are sociopaths), who regularly don the mantle of “real Americans,” proclaiming that they are above the law.

    That’s the issue, not the particulars of how they intend to disobey a court decision they don’t like — that part is just empty rhetoric, nothing more. That’s the point that needs to be made, loudly and publicly: they are opposed to the fundamental principles of American society. We need to brand them as anti-American, again and again and again, until it sticks.

    The serious concern, as some have pointed out, is that they will generate a backlash, which is the whole point of “statements” like this — we can expect a rise in the incidence of anti-gay hate crimes, and they will point to them and say, “See, we told you the American people don’t support this.” But they will not take responsibility for the violence. Tony Perkins will just have a bigger pile of dead queer kids to sit on. I think he likes that idea — he gives every indication of being that twisted.

  • If SCOTUS rules against marriage equality, I expect there will be some demonstrations, albeit peaceful ones.

    If the rule in favor, I’m fully expecting smaller but violent demonstrations and crimes not unlike those France has been experiencing.

  • Yeah, none of the index pages are updating, not even the “newest post” list in the right hand column.

  • So–

    (The Supreme Court is about to redefine marriage)…contrary to the Natural Moral Law which transcends religions, culture, and time.

    I’ll take ’em one at a time in my usual methodical fashion, unpacking those ridiculous words and speciously false assertion. Actually, let’s call this claim what it really is: It is a lie.

    – Like the ancient customs throughout what we now call the Middle East (and not limited to the Abrahamaic peoples) who practiced polygamy, kept concubines, and considered female slaves and servants to be available to the household head’s sexual attentions at any time.
    – The Mormons, who only gave up their religious polygamy (and not even all of them did) for the sake of Utah statehood.
    – Many Islamic sects who still do practice polygamy.
    – A number of Native American peoples who believed that to be gay or lesbian or transgendered was to be “two spirit” endowed, and such an individual was allowed to live as he or she chose. Some were elevated to revered shaman status as a consequence.
    – And finally, there are all the world’s religions that do NOT have any problem or objection to same-sex marriage. The Quakers, Universalists, Orthodox Jews, Pagans, Liberal Buddhists, and Liberal Hindus (quite a few stories in the news from India, mostly in rural areas, where women are marrying each other) — I’m sure they’re all happy to hear that their religions are somehow transcended to mean they actually oppose marriage equality, even though they don’t.

    – Like the Romans who did, in fact, allow men to wed each other.
    – And the Greeks, Egyptians, Mesopotamians, some Chinese regions.
    – Like the Masaai of Africa, who allow women to marry each other. And multiple husbands.
    – And the many cultures worldwide that used to or still do practice polyandry, including peoples in Tibet, India, Polynesia, the Inuit and Aleut peoples, and Celtic cultures (pre-Christianity).

    Ah, this is the biggest one of all, because a whole bunch of things changed, thus proving that marriage was never defined in a static and unchanging way, particularly in Western nations and cultures.
    – Marriage for love, and not arranged.
    – Women free to choose their spouses.
    – No more dowries.
    – Women allowed to own property and run businesses, with or without having a husband.
    – Women are no longer property themselves.
    – People free to divorce and remarry.
    – Widows and widowers allowed to remarry.
    – Secularly imposed restrictions on the age of consent.
    – Laws banning and criminalizing domestic abuse.

    Right — marriage has never, ever changed and only the current model is all there’s ever been. Suuuure.

  • FLL

    Now that I read your comment, it occurs to me that your guess is exactly on target: A slew of lawsuits from Religious Right types are really what they have in mind. This will be the method of operation for almost all of them. It’s the “almost all” that creeps me out. Hopefully, there won’t be the stray lunatic that tries to attack government facilities, city halls or progressive churches. Unfortunately, we’ve seen that violent behavior before in the case of abortion facilities and Planned Parenthood offices.

  • Ditto, posted about it elsewhere. :)

  • Funny thing is, the Supreme Court redefined marriage in 1967 when they said that bans on interracial marriage were illegal and unconstitutional.

    And equally ironic is the same kinds of bigots were saying the same thing back then, that what SCOTUS had done was ‘against natural law’ and all that bronze age BS.

    Frankly, I don’t expect today’s homophobic bigots to be bluffing. Even the most favorable ruling will spawn a whole host of lawsuits as various groups and individuals try to carve out their own right to keep on discriminating.

  • Technical note: For some reason, I’m not seeing any of these new posts (everything after ‘Honey I shrunk the HPV’) on the blog summary pages. The only reason I knew this was here is because I get the RSS feed.

    Checked the behavior on both IE and Firefox and got the same result.

  • SkippyFlipjack

    Their statement is so offensive to our system of laws and so stupid at the same time. It’s saying that if the spent court makes a decision that any group doesn’t like they’ll lose all legitimacy forever. OK.

    It’s like that Cheech and Chong bit where a guy’s lawyer begins his defense by advising the judge: ‘Judge not and ye shall not be judged.’

  • Bj Lincoln

    I have read about calls to action since the arguments. Some indicated violence. Hate crimes directed toward our population have been on the increase.
    Are they honestly willing to “wage war” against our new freedoms? I don’t believe they will got the way of the Pink people in France but they can stir up some sick soul to action and we will be the targets.

    They will never admit responsibility for the pain, lies, or the actions of some crazy person. At this point their only option is to ramp up the BS and drive someone over the edge.
    I just wish we could shut them up. How much are we expected to take?!
    Let them break the law and look stupid. They do need to keep in mind…..
    Is it easier to right a wrong than to wrong a right or take one back.

  • Bill_Perdue

    When bigoted politicians like Obama (“gawd’s in the mix”, several Democrats and even a few Republicans are rebranding it’s a sure sign that at some point we’ll win. The writing’s on the wall although we’ll have to wait until DOMA is repealed or declared unconstitutional. Until then our victories are moot.

    That’s why these christer bigots are such losers. They’ve not only lost in the polls but they’re beginning to lose state by state. They refuse to accept the fact they they’re headed for history’s big smelly dumpster.

    If they want to defy the courts or use criminal terrorism to try to stop marriage equality, as they did when they organized the murder of doctors who perform abortions or threatened judges from the House floor then they’ll find out more than they’ll find out the hard way about the horrors of the American prison system.

  • FLL

    I’m confused about the use of the word “defy” in this statement from the Religious Right. “Defy” implies that someone is ordering you to do something, and you refuse to do it. But that’s a non sequitur, in this case. The Religious Right organizations don’t handle joint tax returns; the IRS does. Fundamentalist Xtians don’t perform same-sex marriage ceremonies; progressive clergymen, city hall clerks and justices of the peace do. So what is there for the fundie Xtians to defy? In order to solve this mystery, we need to refer to the money quote from the Religious Right statement:

    “Finally, the Supreme Court
    has no authority to redefine marriage and thereby weaken both the family
    and society….”

    Technically, this statement is simple lying rather than sedition. Obviously, the Supreme Court has the constitutional authority to hand down decisions that displease fundamentalist Xtians. If the fundies were to take it to the next level and incite people to disrupt the functions of the federal government in retaliation for the U.S. government recognizing same-sex marriages, that would be sedition. If the fundies incited people to put lives and/or property in danger at government locations or the locations of same-sex weddings, that would be domestic terrorism. I suppose it will become clear shortly if they’re just bluffing with this latest temper tantrum.

  • cole3244

    people wonder why this is what i see when someone tells me they are a good christian or born again, as an atheist all religion means to me is hatred and bigotry and its there for everyone to see just open up your eyes and the truth will set you free, so to speak.

  • Jimmy

    This is not particularly shocking. The fringe will always act this way. What makes this disturbing is how they wrap it in the conceit of religion. I think we are heading towards a major blow-up between Christian extremists and the more sane citizens of our country, and it could be bad.

  • Zorba

    If the Supreme Court rules in favor of same-sex marriage, just what exactly are these lunatics planning to do to “not allow this to occur”?
    Sounds like potential terrorist threats to me.

  • DonewithDems

    This action smacks of sedition to me.

  • Sweetie

    The second photo appears to also show a counter-protester. Her sign says “Leviticus also says no football, haircuts, cotton-polyester blends, no tattoos — but I guess we’re skipping those too”

    I can’t imagine that the Phelps people are trying to get rid of haircuts and football, but who knows?

  • Marco Luxe

    Of the tactics of theocrats you forgot — occupy county and state offices of elections to make it harder for your opponents to vote; pass onerous state voter ID laws to the same effect, win in state legislatures then gerrymander districts to consolidate undemocratic power.

  • Metro Issues :: Lou

    Not only that, but the Bible is inclusive of other kinds of marriage, as it stands.

  • Metro Issues :: Lou

    They get it seriously wrong when they suggest that the Supreme Court was EVER a “moral authority”. The SC interprets U.S. law under the Consitution, not Christian law. It may help them to take a single class in the fundamentals of American government.

  • nicho

    No one has ever accused them of logic or consistency.

  • rerutled

    I like how they say they reject secularism and relativism, and then go on to say that one-man-one-woman marriage is a product of reason, and not of Christianity, thereby implying that it’s a product of secular relativism.

© 2017 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS