Dobson: Marriage Equality Could Cause Civil War

James Dobson participated in a conference call with a number of other well-known Christian right bigots in which he said that if marriage equality comes to America, it could lead to another civil war because of the “level of intensity” the political and legal battles have produced.

James Dobson, the founder of the Religious Right behemoth Focus on the Family, warned in a recent conference call with fellow anti-gay activists that a Supreme Court ruling in favor of marriage equality could lead to a full-blown civil war.

After Janet Porter, the creator of a new “documentary” about how the gay rights movement will outlaw Christianity, discussed her “restraining order” campaign to convince Congress to strip the Supreme Court of its authority to rule on marriage cases, Dobson said that his fellow activists “need to be realistic about what we’re up against here.”

He said that the gay rights issue has reached an unprecedented “level of intensity” and put the country on the brink of conflict: “Talk about a Civil War, we could have another one over this.”

I find it hilarious the degree of importance that the bigots assign to gay marriage. As I’ve long said, here’s what will happen once we have marriage equality nationwide:

Some gay people will get married.

Most people will get used to the idea (they already have, in fact).

The bigots will rage about it but their numbers will dwindle as the soft bigots get used to the idea and realize it isn’t causing the end of the world.

The hardcore bigots will be increasingly marginalized and will soon be viewed like hardcore racists and ignored.

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • D. C. Sessions

    The hardcore bigots will be increasingly marginalized and will soon be viewed like hardcore racists and ignored.

    And will nurse their resentment for generations, not being any less bigoted but not speaking openly of it except among other haters of a similar bent. Expressing their bottled-up anger by joining with other malcontents to disrupt what they really hate: civilized society.

  • raven

    James Dobson, the founder of the Religious Right behemoth Focus on the Family,…

    Not any more.

    1. Focus on Hating Everyone has had declining revenues for years and several rounds of staff layoffs. Dobson was pushed out because Focus on Hate thought Dobson’s many hates were becoming a liability.

    2. The sponsors of xian terrorism are making more threats now? Not surprised. This is BTW, sedition. And Dobson doesn’t want to fight the US military backed up by most of 319 million citizens. He wants someone else to do it. These guys are all chickenhawks.

    And the last two times they marched on Washington DC to overthrow Obama, they managed to get a few dozen people.

  • raven

    wikipedia:

    In November 2008, the organization announced that it was eliminating 202 jobs, representing 18 percent of its workforce. The organization also cut its budget from $160 million in fiscal 2008 to $138 million for fiscal 2009.[10]

    Revenue for 2011 is $95,209,896 (2011 FY)[1]

    Focus on Hate has had it’s revenues decline from $160 million in 2008 to $95 million in 2011. When they are finally gone, the world won’t notice but it will still be a better place.

  • D. C. Sessions

    When they are finally gone, the world won’t notice but it will still be a better place.

    Come now, Raven. Some of us will notice.

    Will you join me in celebrating?

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    They do know that if a new Civil War breaks out over this we’ll Nationalize their industries and force their side to provide ours with cakes and bouquets.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    There should be a question mark at the end of that. Not this, though. This was a statement.

  • John Pieret

    Talk about a Civil War, we could have another one over this.

    “Civil War” = “impotent raging by a shrinking minority”.

    Incidentally, a recent Yale Law Journal article, “Conscience Wars: Complicity-Based Conscience Claims in Religion and Politics” puts the RFRA laws in a good perspective.

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2560658

    For those who don’t want to subject themselves to 76 pages of dense legalese, Dahlia Lithwick at Slate has a nice summary:

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/04/rfras_in_indiana_arkansas_louisiana_religious_conscience_complicity_and.single.html

    Essentially, they note that the original RFRA was aimed at protecting an individual from government intrusion into the individual’s religious beliefs/practices but, over time, the idea was expanded to religious objections to being made to be complicit in the assertedly sinful conduct of others or “complicity-based conscience claims,” which are fundamentally different than what the original RFRA intended.

    The authors of the law review article have one observation that we all will recognize:

    Without change in numbers or belief, religious actors can change from speaking as a majority seeking to enforce traditional morality, to speaking as a minority seeking exemptions from laws that offend traditional morality.

    Yep.

  • mkoormtbaalt

    A civil war is a pipe dream for bigots and malcontents at this point. The nation is far too centralized and interconnected at this point for it to happen. You’d have to eliminate about 20 people simultaneously before there would be any sort of anarchy that would allow for a civil war.

  • scienceavenger

    Some gay people will get married.

    Most people will get used to the idea (they already have, in fact).

    The bigots will rage about it but their numbers will dwindle as the soft bigots get used to the idea and realize it isn’t causing the end of the world.

    The hardcore bigots will be increasingly marginalized and will soon be viewed like hardcore racists and ignored.

    …The cultural descendants of the hardcore bigots will claim their side was responsible for marriage equality all along, and that the liberals opposed it.

  • dingojack

    “He [Dobson] said that the gay rights issue has reached an unprecedented “level of intensity” and put the country on the brink of conflict: “Talk about a Civil War, we could have another one over this.””

    BTW, how’s that ‘American Revolution v3.0‘ thang going Jimmy D? Got a whole dozen people who’ll promise (cross-their-hearts-and-hope-to-die) to march drive their mobility scooters on Washington yet? Third time’s the charm, right?

    This time for sure (nothin’ up my sleeve).

    @@ Dingo

  • whheydt

    Every time one of these clowns talks about there being another Civil War, they should be asked about how the first one came out for their side, and why they think another would be any different.

  • busterggi

    Isn’t it interesting that no matter what the issue its always the same states that wan to secede &/or start another Civil War?

  • lola

    Most of the hardcore bigots are in no physical shape to be fighting actual wars. They will simply continue whining when they don’t get their way, as happened after the Indiana fiasco.

  • cptdoom

    A civil war is a pipe dream for bigots and malcontents at this point. The nation is far too centralized and interconnected at this point for it to happen. You’d have to eliminate about 20 people simultaneously before there would be any sort of anarchy that would allow for a civil war.

    They don’t really want a civil war, they want a new bogeyman they can use to raise $$ from the deluded ultraconservatives. They desperately want another Roe v. Wade, another rallying cry of “immorality” and “the breakdown of society” that they can use to deflect from the real problems of the country and give politicians who don’t want to actually work have a quick soundbite to convince voters of how “moral” they are. Look how they jumped on the “religious freedom” bandwagon when they realized the same-sex marriage war was all but lost. Now all these anti-gay groups are pretending they never supported sodomy laws and are the persecuted minority now that TEH GAY has gotten a modicum of equality.

    But I have a feeling they’re going to be sorely disappointed. The pathetic turnout at the annual “March for Marriage” – clearly an attempt at complementing or even replacing the “March for Life” – demonstrates how little people really care about the issue, even when they are anti-gay. It is very easy to roil people up with the equation of abortion to “killing babies,” it’s going to prove a lot harder to convince people that Ken and Ben getting hitched is “killing marriage,” especially when the fundies notice their marriages are no better and no worse than before. More importantly, marriages are not one-time activities. You may have a wedding on one day, but you are married for the foreseeable future. The couple will present themselves as married, interact with their community as a married couple and raise their children as married. The marriage will be obvious and present every day, unlike an abortion, which happens in private and normally is not something you celebrate (does anyone have an “abortion anniversary” party?).

    When marriage came to Massachusetts, my sister told me how her local paper had a page full of angry letters when the first same-sex marriage announcement was published (this is in Western Mass, which is far more socially conservative than the eastern part of the Commonwealth), published about 3 similarly angry letters when the second announcement ran and admitted there were no letter when the third announcement ran. That’s a microcosm of what’s going to happen with marriage.

  • D. C. Sessions

    The cultural descendants of the hardcore bigots will claim their side was responsible for marriage equality all along, and that the liberals opposed it.

    Yes! It was the South that led the way in eliminating slavery.

  • Kevin Kehres

    You forgot the most-important and long-lasting outcome.

    Right-wing bigots will use the issue as a dog whistle for every election from now until it stops winning them elections. Just like abortion. It’ll be tied directly to each and every fund-raiser and be as much a part of every Tea Party platform speech as the American flag lapel pin.

  • peterh

    “…the gay rights issue has reached an unprecedented “level of intensity” …”

    It’s become so intense that it’s the law of the land in 74% of the states.

  • RickR

    John Pieret @7-

    Fred Clark at Slacktivist had a couple of recent posts about the state-level RFRA+ bills and the notion of how the RR is seeking to “weaponize religious exemptions”.

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2015/04/02/weaponized-religious-exemptions-in-turn-weaponize-religion-part-1/

  • eric

    @14

    They don’t really want a civil war, they want a new bogeyman they can use to raise $$ from the deluded ultraconservatives.

    Deluded is probably right. Future GOP candidates for the presidency, house, and senate will blow all the right anti-SSM dogwhistles and then: “gosh…we just couldn’t address the issue this term. Damn liberals! Well if you re-elect me, I promise I will get around to it next term…”

  • dugglebogey

    Your predictions are not fair because you are just saying exactly what happened when Loving happened.

  • caseloweraz

    There is a phrase: “Roosters of the Apocalypse.” It specifically applies to an African tribe that reportedly destroyed itself rather than submit to colonization. However, its general application is to someone who stridently warns against an imaginary or insignificant crisis.

    In our day, the Heartland Institute has adopted it as a catch phrase, in lieu of its less erudite equivalent “chicken littles,” using it against those they call “warmists.” They even published a book of that name to further their cause. (I link to a review of the book so as to avoid adding one jot or tittle to their coffers via Amazon.)

    But I digress. The phrase does legitimately apply to fundamentalist Christians like Dobson who have been proclaiming the imminent collapse of “the most significant nation on Earth” since before many of us were born, for any number of illogical reasons. Unlike climate scientists, they cannot present any real evidence of the beginning of any harmful trend they predict. But they don’t need to, for their purpose really is to raise unfounded fears. Raise the fears, fleece the flock.