Bathing in the Tears of Bigots

The Christian right is reacting to the Supreme Court’s denial of cert in all of the pending state marriage cases, which effectively boosted the number of states with legal same-sex marriage by over 50%, with great wailing and gnashing of teeth. For your endless amusement, I present the statements of all the leading bigots so that we may fill a hot tub with their tears and throw a party. From Liberty Counsel:

“This is a total dereliction of duty,” said Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel. ”The Supreme Court abandoned its duty to take up or at least hold these marriage cases. The responsibility for the undermining of marriage rests solely at the U.S. Supreme Court. Last year’s decision in the Defense of Marriage Act case that started this fire, and today’s decision to watch marriage burn to ashes is the responsibility of the Supreme Court. The actions of the Supreme Court in particular, and of the judiciary in general, undermine the rule of law and erode the confidence of the people in the judicial branch of government. When the people lose confidence in the rule of law, the judiciary will lose is legitimacy. Everyone will be affected by same-sex marriage because it is an intolerant agenda that will directly collide with religious freedom,” said Staver.

Yes, marriage is now going to BURN TO ASHES, people. I mean, not Mat Staver’s marriage. And not any other actual marriage either. But marriage itself will now burn to ashes in some vague and unspecified way. From the Family Research Council:

“Unfortunately, by failing to take up these marriage cases, the High Court will allow rogue lower court judges who have ignored history and true legal precedent to silence the elected representatives of the people and the voice of the people themselves by overturning state provisions on marriage. Even more alarming, lower court judges are undermining our form of government and the rights and freedoms of citizens to govern themselves. This judicially led effort to force same sex ‘marriage’ on people will have negative consequences for our Republic, not only as it relates to natural marriage but also undermining the rule of and respect for law.”

From the National Organization of Marriage:

“We are surprised and extremely disappointed that the US Supreme Court has refused to grant review of the same-sex marriage cases pending before them. This is wrong on so many levels. First, the entire idea that marriage can be redefined from the bench is illegitimate. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman; it has been this throughout the history of civilization and will remain this no matter what unelected judges say. Second, it’s mind-boggling that lower court judges would be allowed to impose the redefinition of marriage in these states, and our highest court would have nothing to say about it. Third, the effect of the lower court rulings is to say that a constitutional right to same-sex ‘marriage’ has existed in every state in the union since 1868 when the 14th Amendment was ratified, but somehow nobody noticed until quite recently. That’s the absurd belief we are being told to accept.

“It’s possible that the Supreme Court wants to wait to take a case when a Circuit split develops so that it can rule in favor of the people’s right to define marriage as it has always been defined. We’re hopeful that the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals will rule in our favor and that the Supreme Court will then take that case and decide that marriage is not unconstitutional.”

Decide that marriage is not unconstitutional? What? Seriously? I think you’ve spun yourself right into the ground there, Brian. From the Faith and Freedom Coalition:

Today’s Supreme Court decision not to hear appeals of lower-court rulings that legalized same-sex marriage in five states is a miscarriage of justice that lays the predicate for a Roe v. Wade decision on marriage that will impose same-sex marriage on the entire country by judicial fiat. The Court’s action has the effect of overturning the will of the voters in Indiana, Virginia, Utah, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin, including instances in which state constitutions were amended to codify marriage as the union between a man and a woman. Today’s decision further insures that the marriage issue will motivate and mobilize voters of faith who are concerned about marriage and deeply resent having the institution redefined contrary to the clearly expressed will of the people by federal judges who legislate from the bench. For candidates running in 2014 and those who run for president in 2016, there will be no avoiding this issue. If the Supreme Court is planning a Roe v. Wade on marriage, it will sow the wind and reap a political whirlwind.

What, no threat that God will strike them down with Ebola or something? Pfft. Amateurs.

"Hey, I receive a signal that someone wants me to mar their vehicles when then ..."

Catholic School to Punish Students for ..."
"“Our brave soldiers fought for your right to protest, so you must respect their sacrifice ..."

Catholic School to Punish Students for ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • D. C. Sessions

    It’s like they’re phoning it in. The heart seems to have gone out of them.

    I was really expecting more, though, from the reaction to yesterday’s Ninth Circuit decision that also extended heightened scrutiny to sexual orientation. Oh, well — maybe after the shock wears off they’ll get their indignant rhetoric back on track.

  • Dave Maier

    “that lays the predicate for a Roe v. Wade decision”

    Autocorrect is not your friend.

  • Michael Heath

    I find these arguments against gay marriage, especially those premised on the Constitution, to demonstrate far more denialism than what’s required to believe in creationism.

  • John Pieret

    Matt Barber has come up with something new (small points for originality):

    Not only is it wrong for courts to overturn state laws defining marriage, “States don’t even have the right to redefine marriage, it’s like saying I want to redefine purple.”

    Ever look at a spectrum, Matt? What some people call purple others might call violet or lavender. Why are you even talking about colors, Matt, since all you can think in is black and white>

  • dingojack

    Yes marriage equality is just so against the will of the people. Well then, let there be a referendum on the issue to test that proposition shall we?

    No? Didn’t think so.


  • D. C. Sessions

    Dingo, give them a few years and they’ll be going for “defining marriage” by Congressional District.

  • ashleybell

    They’re trying to figure out which new group to put at the top of their hate list.

  • steve78b

    Aren’t the people for marriage still having a 50% divorce rate?

    Aren’t they the ones who are demonstrating an ANTI-marriage attitude?

    Had to ask a friend yesterday (who is married and was complaining about same sex marriage) … will you be forced to marry a man? NO!! What does it hurt you?

  • Modusoperandi

    steve78b “Aren’t the people for marriage still having a 50% divorce rate?”

    Worse, the other 50% end up dead.

  • petemoulton

    ashleybell@ #7: xians have hated on so many groups through the years that I’m having some difficulty figuring out who’s left.

  • steve78b

    Its best to only listen to the TRUE CHRISTIANS.

    ….. if we could only find some.

  • whheydt

    J. Kennedy issued an emergency stay at the request of Idaho in the Nevada&Idaho cases decision from the 9th Circuit. He gave the other side until Thursday to respond. It is expected that the whole court will decide next week whether to dissolve the stay or make it continue through any appeals.

    My guess (IANAL, so i have to use logic, which is a weak tool when dealing with courts)… I think they’ll dissolve the stay with regards to Nevada (that case has a stake through its heart at this point), continue the stay for appeals for Idaho, unless they are determined not to take the case when they get it, in which case they will dissolve the stay for Idaho as well.

    Idaho’s actions are a bit harder to call… If the Gov. is smart (questionable…), he knows he’s going to lose and can only play for time. To do that, his best best is to “kick the can down the road” by asking for an en banc hearing from the 9th Circuit and only when that is dealt with, appeal to SCOTUS. If he just wants to play to the rubes, or wants it over while looking like he’s trying to fight the decision, he’ll directly appeal to SCOTUS.

  • corporal klinger

    I still have to read or hear one, just ONE, reasonable argument that would justify the denial of equal rights to gay people.

    Get over it, bigots! There is none!

  • sinned34

    Marriage is the union of one man and one woman; it has been this throughout the history of civilization

    Yet more proof that these supposed Christians have never actually read their Bible.

  • timgueguen

    sinned34, I would be utterly unsurprised if some of the people who make such statements have also raised the spectre of polygamy if something isn’t done about Muslims coming into the US.

  • RickR

    @whheydt- It’s nothing but pure spite. They’re going to keep those dirty fags from marrying in their state as long as they possibly can, chances for ultimate victory be damned.

  • dugglebogey

    Marriage is burned to ashes? Sweet, that could save me a fortune on a divorce. Thanks Mat Staver!

  • sinned34


    Forget about them using it as a threat against allowing Muslim immigration, I recall for years here in Canada that the “slippery slope” argument was being used to deny gay marriage. “If you let gays get married, then you have to allow polygamy!” Of course, they were completely oblivious to the fact that their Bible is full of polygamy, and nowhere is there any scripture that supposedly “does away” with multiple marriage, despite that many Christians claim that it’s no longer part of God’s plan for humanity.

    Interestingly, they could be right about polygamy becoming legal, if the fundamentalist Mormons in Bountiful (and elsewhere) have anything to do with it. Not to mention that it could be argued that the number of “multiple wives” reality TV shows on these days may be normalizing polygamy in the mind of the general public.

  • anubisprime

    RickR @ 16

    It’s nothing but pure spite. They’re going to keep those dirty fags from marryin

    Yep that about describes and defines their past, present and future attitudes to SSM.

    They know in their black and shrivelled hearts that they have lost this one big time, so they are all busy playing the xtian martyr/persecution card, now it is a game of ‘keepy uppy’ not letting that ball hit the ground for as long as they can and by whatever means.

    To that end they are playing tag team tactics…soon as one little heroic charge for teh ghey discrimination bites the dust, another bunch of retards hoists yet another tatty banner of ‘Bigots-B-Uz’

    But they are running out of states!

    They have done it in every instance they have lost the argument, any argument, they always make it an acrimonious and bitter last stand and inflict as much pointless retribution as they can muster before their ark finally flounders on the rocks of tough shit sherlock .

    Call it xtian ‘lurve’…tis what jeebus would do…amIrite?

    But it is certainly a petulant and pouty, if not sulky response, a sure sign that they know that the pro marriage folks know that the bigots have crashed and burned, and the wannabe bigots is sad little bunnies that have well and truly lost their hop!…

    Sad innit?

  • freehand

    If we let Christians marry, pretty soon we’ll be legalizing polygamy and concubines. As well as incest (Abraham, Lot, Adam). OK, Lot didn’t actually marry his daughters, so it was alright. And he was drunk, and didn’t know what he was doing. Both times. And I think that sex with your clone must be incest, so Adam and Eve – not to mention all their children* – would count.


    * Who either married their siblings, non-humans, or the other, not-created-by-Yahweh humans.

  • Michael Heath

    corporal klinger:

    I still have to read or hear one, just ONE, reasonable argument that would justify the denial of equal rights to gay people.

    One reason I was looking forward to Perry v. Schwarzenegger was to see if there was a credible argument for government to infringe upon gay people’s right to marry. As you noted, there was none. I find that amazing, all that energy hating on people without having one credible reason to do so.

    Other investigations that yielded nothing but fatally defective arguments was the argument that the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect an individual right own and bear arms, that creationism is science, and all the arguments made by those who oppose mitigating the threat of climate change. They all have nothing but rhetorical fallacies, dupes, determined ignorance, idiocy, and motivations to lie.

  • anubisprime

    It is but passing obvious…that the supreme court have no legal precedent and no compelling argument as yet to challenge SSM and strike it down where ever it arose, otherwise they would have ruled so in the past, they have had plenty of opportunity to do so political allegiance aside, if there is a bar they would have joyfully forwarded it in their deliberations before now because it would have got them all off the excruciating hook so to speak…they have not.

    The simple reason being they can not, there is no good legal imperative to do so and they know it, even Scalia cannot find the magic because beyond wishful and bigoted delusion, there is none!

    And if anyone would it would be he, and he has nothing, zilch, nada, it can be bet that he has looked and twisted what he has found, but he cannot break it even so!

    The RCC must be so disappointed in their hero!

    So seems SCOTUS are playing can kicking, they cannot break it, sink it or in any way dispose of it, many have tried elsewhere and no one has succeeded beyond temporary measure, and they must be aware the public opinion has radically altered in the last decade and certainly the last five years so they are playing the ‘delay the inevitable card’ and wait until what opposition there is are worn away by lower court rulings and a changing attitude in society.

    Seems they will not have that long to wait, and apart from the bigots-B-uz actually lynching the judiciary, the die is set.

    They are playing for posterity…and they know it.

    Their basic inaction is a sign that they are waiting for the rest to catch up to the obvious…SSM is a right

  • dingojack

    “… the supreme court have no legal precedent and no compelling argument as yet to challenge SSM and strike it down where ever it arose…”

    Those damned inactivist* judges! [shakes fist].



    * I’m always amused by the thought that the judiciary is activist when the court can only take (or not take) cases that are brought to it by a person or group who can show actual harm.

    Wingnuts seem to think Judges make laws then roam around the country investigating, arresting and then trying people.