Staver Demands Pres. Candidates Pledge to Disobey SCOTUS

Mat Staver, the dumbest lawyer in American not named Larry Klayman, has written a pledge for presidential candidates to sign that says they will refuse to follow any Supreme Court ruling that legalizes same-sex marriage. And he expects them all to sign it…or else.

When host J.D. Hayworth asked Staver if he expected other Republican candidates to follow Huckabee and Santorum’s lead in adding their names, he declared that he expected every candidate to sign on.

“We’re going to ask every presidential candidate — Republican and Democrat — to sign on to this pledge and it’s going to be very telling if they don’t,” Staver said at about the 3:30 mark of this interview.

Yes, it will be very telling indeed. It will tell which of them are reasonable and which are not.

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • eric

    Its going to be very interesting to see whether the GOP pro-business side can successfully remove SSM as an issue from the GOP primary and general election races. Right now, it appears they are losing and the answer is “no.”

  • peterh

    It’s going to be telling, all right; It’s going to be telling such idiots to go pound sand.

  • John Pieret

    No Cruz, Rubio or Walker yet. Not even Carson has signed.

  • scienceavenger

    Please, please, please, please, pretty please, with sugar on it. And while you are at it, get them to sign a pledge that climate change is a scam, evolution a myth, first trimester abortion is murer, and the Iraq war was a good idea. That’ll bring in the moderate votes in droves for sure.

  • StevoR

    So contempt of court is legal or something? Can’t / won’t Staver and any Repub candidates get into actual serious legal trouble for that?

  • Larry

    I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

    Other than that, full wingnut ahead!

  • StevoR

    @ ^ Larry : I don’t think taking that oath will be a problem for them. None of those taking this pledge are likey to actually win and become POTUS. I expect and hope. But yeah.

  • http://www.gregory-gadow.net Gregory in Seattle

    At what point does this become sedition?

  • caseloweraz

    I went looking for the wording of the pledge, and found it here. To be fair, it’s not as badly worded as I thought it would be. But then there’s this paragraph:

    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.

    Yeah, the age of consent: something that’s right and proper as part of government regulation of marriage, just as set forth in holy scripture. (Not)

    Judging by the penultimate paragraph, they pledge to continue speechifyin’ against the incorrectness of the anticipated Supreme Court decision — and, presumably, to bravely remain married to women.

  • Pierce R. Butler

    It will tell which of them are reasonable and which are not.

    John Pieret @ # 3: No Cruz, Rubio or Walker yet. Not even Carson …

    Ergo, Cruz, Rubio, Walker, & Carson are reasonable…???!?

  • Chiroptera

    caseloweraz, #9: Government has long regulated marriage for the true common good.

    Is it me, or does this come real close to being an “own goal”? I mean, it seem to skirt along the edges of “defining” what marriage is.

  • cptdoom

    I’m sure this push to announce defiance of any equality ruling from the Supreme Court is exactly the correct way to influence the Justices to consider the merits of your legal argument. Just like telling them they’ll go to Hell if they support LGBT equality is a really good argument. Keep talking, Staver, as loudly as possible, if you please.

  • StevoR

    @4. scienceavenger :

    while you are at it, get them to sign a pledge that climate change is a scam, evolution a myth, first trimester abortion is murer, and the Iraq war was a good idea. That’ll bring in the moderate votes in droves for sure.

    Isn’t there already plenty on the public record about them saying all of that? But yeah, one more bit of conclusive historical evidence just in case there was even a nano-particles worth of doubt I guess.

  • dingojack

    “We’re going to ask every presidential candidate — Republican and Democrat — to sign on to this pledge and it’s going to be very telling if they don’t.” Staver said.

    Yep – it’ll tell the difference between the candidates that don’t sign and have a chance of winning votes (no matter how slim), and those who do and are in it simply to squeeze cash outta the rubes.

    Dingo

  • StevoR

    @12. cptdoom : You’d think he knows how little this doesn’t help his cause wouldn’t you? But he doesn’t seem to care. I suspect he knows his “argument” (and side) is already well and truly lost at the judicial level and is just playing for bigot votes but even there the failure of long term thinking and the fact that he’s just proudly put himself on the totally wrong side of history is kinda staggering. Does Staver not realise how bad he looks to most folks just about now, let alone how his hateful bile will be perceived five or ten a few decades time?

  • Doug Little

    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.

    They already have, multiple times. Please tell me again how allowing gay people to marry undermines the institution of marriage. The arguments bought forth by the state are terrible, they could use your help.

  • busterggi

    Funny, he didn’t have any objection to the SCOTUS declaring corporations to be people and have religious beliefs.