Staver Will Refuse to Follow Marriage Equality Ruling

I’m still highly amused at all of these Christian leaders pledging to “give their lives” and to bravely refuse to follow any Supreme Court ruling that allows gay people to get married. It’s damn easy to refuse to follow a law that doesn’t apply to you in any way. Here’s Mat Staver at the March for Marriage.

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.”

So what the hell are you going to do, Mat? Not get gay married? Good for you. No one will give a shit. Other people getting married has nothing to do with you. A Supreme Court ruling allowing them to get married imposes no obligations on you at all, so there’s nothing for you to refuse to do. There’s nothing for you to not follow. You’re so very brave to stand up and refuse to follow a law you never had to follow in the first place. So brave.

"So, in October he was a moron (IQ 51-70), and in November he is down ..."

Report: McMaster Called Trump a Childish ..."
"Denmark was the first one IIRC, and they're still doing just fine."

Swanson: God Will Punish Australia for ..."
"You've been saying that for a year, now. Your original point may be valid. But ..."

Report: McMaster Called Trump a Childish ..."
"And...God hasn't destroyed any other country where gays can get married. In fact, most of ..."

Swanson: God Will Punish Australia for ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • http://www.thelosersleague.com theschwa

    He will bravely refuse to refer to a gay man’s spouse as his husband. Yes, he will even risk going to jail over this! He will risk being thrown in an Obama FEMA camp over it!

  • John Pieret

    Unfortunately, what they are likely to do is enlist idiot state legislators in states where there are idiot (or ambitious to run for higher office) governors who will sign anything, as in Texas, to enact laws that will deprive county clerks of their paychecks and pensions if they issue, in accordance with the law of the land, gay marriage licenses. Of course, that will put the county clerks in an untenable spot and get them sued in Federal courts. Expect much symbolic ‘standing in the wedding chapel doors’ which, in the end will be as effective (and precisely the same motivation) as George Wallace’s try at that.

  • Deacon Duncan

    Wait, Dred Scott, which upheld the right of property owners to own slaves, is contrary to God’s law? Dude, have you even read what it says in God’s law, like around Exodus 21 or so?

  • peterh

    @ #3:

    Very few of these fire-breathing fundies have a clue as to the numerous irrational prohibitions and commandments contained in that magic book of theirs.

  • cptdoom

    Of course, that will put the county clerks in an untenable spot and get them sued in Federal courts. Expect much symbolic ‘standing in the wedding chapel doors’ which, in the end will be as effective (and precisely the same motivation) as George Wallace’s try at that.

    Yeah, except Wallace at least had the guts to stand in the doorway himself. The legislators in Texas and Oklahoma are forcing others to actually pay the penalty of their refusal to follow the law.

    Wait, Dred Scott, which upheld the right of property owners to own slaves, is contrary to God’s law? Dude, have you even read what it says in God’s law, like around Exodus 21 or so?

    I’ve also heard numerous anti-gay types argue Dred Scott was wrongly decided. The only problem is that the Constitution was pretty clear on who had rights in pre-Civil War America, and it wasn’t black people, certainly not slaves. Of course, they bring up this case to scare the Justices – “you’re going to make a decision that will be infamous” – seems to be the mantra.

    If you want to point to wrongly decided cases, vis-a-vis individual rights, the correct precedents are Plessy v. Ferguson and Bowers v. Hardwick which allowed limitations on citizens’ rights to accommodate the prejudice of others, exactly what the anti-gay movement wants. They can’t use those examples, though, because they sort of undermine the whole argument in favor of marriage discrimination.

  • eric

    Ed:

    So what the hell are you going to do, Mat?

    He’s going to open a wedding cake bakery and wait for the gay customers to show up, just so he can refuse them!

    Or maybe more likely, participate in sit-ins in county clerk offices. Become the new Westboro – disrupting other people’s milestones in life just to be a d*ck.

    JP:

    …in Texas, to enact laws that will deprive county clerks of their paychecks and pensions if they issue, in accordance with the law of the land, gay marriage licenses. Of course, that will put the county clerks in an untenable spot and get them sued in Federal courts. Expect much symbolic ‘standing in the wedding chapel doors’ which, in the end will be as effective (and precisely the same motivation) as George Wallace’s try at that.

    But in the short term will do much damage. I can’t imagine most county clerks are in an economic position that allows them to go without pay for any significant duration of time, even if they expect to get back pay a year or so down the road when the courts rule the law unconstitutional. I would expect that even the ones who support gay rights will follow such state laws (all the while waiting for the courts to overturn them).

  • eric

    Of course, they bring up this case to scare the Justices – “you’re going to make a decision that will be infamous” – seems to be the mantra.

    Good, more power to them. Keep reminding the Justices of things like their historical legacy. With enemies like these…

  • D. C. Sessions

    Saying that like Dred Scott, a decision in favor of marriage equality would be “contrary to the natural law of God,”

    Nice reversal, Dude.

    Back then, Dred Scott was ruled precisely as law according to the unchanging Will of God. Who, let us not forget, commanded both slavery and the sanctity of property.

  • StevoR

    @ ^ D. C. Sessions : And no shellfish or shrimp or mixed fabric clothing! Don’t forget those! Plus get firewood on the Sabbath and you get stoned and not in a good way either!

    (Although that does explain the “Man on the Moon” Apparently – and not the Armstrong, Aldrin, Conrad and co variety neither.)

  • Doug Little

    <blockquote.You’re so very brave to stand up and refuse to follow a law you never had to follow in the first place.

    The lazy man’s activism.

  • Doug Little

    Lets try that again.

    You’re so very brave to stand up and refuse to follow a law you never had to follow in the first place

    The lazy man’s activism.

  • iknklast

    I think I’ll jump on the bandwagon and arbitrarily decide not to follow every single law that doesn’t apply to me. Because why should they have laws that don’t apply to me, anyway? Isn’t it all about me, and what I want?

  • noahsarkive

    Wait…is this the same Matt Staver who is the dumbest lawyer in America save Larry Klayman?

  • John Pieret

    noahsarkive:

    Wait…is this the same Matt Staver who is the dumbest lawyer in America save Larry Klayman?

    Couldn’t you tell?

  • John Pieret

    eric @ 6:

    I would expect that even the ones who support gay rights will follow such state laws (all the while waiting for the courts to overturn them).

    Yes, and that is exactly what the bastards who have proposed such laws are counting on. It is the classical last ditch effort of those who have lost to fight a rear guard action to delay and harass the “enemy” as long as possible. They’ve been at it for 40+ years now in the case of abortion and may be at it as long in the case of SSM. Which is why I speculated, in another thread, that Justice Kennedy might be open to a “compromise” on SSM that allowed states to keep their SSM bans but force them to accept out-of-state SSMs. Whether or not that would placate the bigots is the open question,