Keyes: Gay Marriage a ‘Just Cause for War’

Unhinged bigot Alan Keyes, who disowned his own daughter for being a lesbian, gives us his usual pseudo-eloquent screed against same-sex marriage. And it’s clear that he is openly hoping for another civil war, saying that if the Supreme Court rules in favor of equality, that will be a “just cause for war.”

The United States Supreme Court may presently make a decision discarding marriage as an unalienable (natural) right. By defect of reason and respect for the Constitution, the decision will return the people of this country to the condition of constantly impending war characteristic of the human condition when and wherever the just premises of government are abandoned…

If the United States Supreme Court presumes to impose any redefinition of marriage on the states, respectively, or the people, without addressing the issue of unalienable right it involves, with reasoning that respects God-endowed right (which is the logic by which the American people asserted, and still claim to possess and exercise, sovereign authority over themselves), the Court’s decision will be an attack on the very foundation of constitutional government, of by and for the people of the United States. It will be a high crime and misdemeanor that effectively dissolves the just bonds of government between and among the states, and among the individuals who compose the people of the United States. It will therefore be just cause for war.

Like the Dred Scott decision that heralded the onset of the first Civil War, the Court’s action will bring the nation to the brink, whence “nothing but confusion and disorder will follow. …” If the justices do not tread carefully, their temerity could very well set in motion the death throes of what is still supposed to be their country. “Forbid it, Almighty God!”

Oh yes, another civil war! Here’s what will happen if the Supreme Court rules for marriage equality: Almost nothing. The Christian right will respond with spasms of rage. And most Americans will ignore them. And some gay people will get married. And only the bigots will think twice about it. And I’ll laugh at them. A lot.

"Yes, I suspect you would know. Did you see that fucking rally last night? Something ..."

Trump Wars 4: A New Hope
"True, I can't think of any foreign occupations of Afghanistan that have not gone swimmingly.Oh, ..."

Breaking Down Trump’s Afghanistan Speech
Follow Us!
POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • http://www.facebook.com/josef.mulroney Josef Mulroney

    so guaranteeing the right of same sex couples to have legally recognized marriage is “discarding marriage as an unalienable (natural) right” in the warped world of alan keyes?

  • wreck

    “The United States Supreme Court may presently make a decision discarding marriage as an unalienable (natural) right.”

    By letting more people get married. Words! What do they mean?

    “If the United States Supreme Court presumes to impose any redefinition of marriage on the states, respectively, or the people, without addressing the issue of unalienable right it involves, with reasoning that respects God-endowed right (which is the logic by which the American people asserted, and still claim to possess and exercise, sovereign authority over themselves)”

    This American, for one, does not assert or claim to possess and exercise any “God-endowed” rights. Speak (like an idiot) for yourself, asshole.

  • dugglebogey

    Do they just read what people in Mississippi said during the civil rights movement and repeat it verbatim? This goes beyond bigotry into plagiarism!

  • dingojack

    I like how the word salad:

    If the United States Supreme Court presumes to impose any redefinition of marriage on the states, respectively, or the people*, without addressing the issue of unalienable right it involves, with reasoning that respects God-endowed right (which is the logic by which the American people asserted, and still claim to possess and exercise, sovereign authority over themselves), the Court’s decision will be an attack on the very foundation of constitutional government, of by and for the people of the United States. It will be a high crime and misdemeanor that effectively dissolves the just bonds of government between and among the states, and among the individuals who compose the people of the United States. It will therefore be just cause for war.”

    [italics are the ‘mad-libs’ that were strung together to make it sound ‘truthy’]

    Without actually explaining how ‘redefining marriage’ (as he puts it) will infringe on any ‘unalienable right’**, under what US legal framework increasing who can legally marry will constitute ‘a high crime or misdemeanour’, nor how it will ‘dissolve the bonds between States and between people’, exactly.

    Dingo

    ———

    * Does he mean ‘…impose any redefinition of marriage on the states, or the people, respectively…’?

    ** Never mind that the States (and/or the Federal Government) can’t bestow/remove ‘unalienable rights’ by definition, and that these rights are attached to the people (as they are persons) not the State or Federal Government.

  • scott

    Come on out and say it, Alan- “I believe that murder is justified to prevent weddings of which I disapprove”. You’re almost there, you can do it.

  • howardhershey

    Unless he and like-minded persons plan to actually wage war against the United States government, the only alternative is to do what the South did after the Civil War to prevent blacks from using the civil rights that the Federal government imposed on them after the Noble Cause lost: lynching, burning houses and churches, harassing and jailing gays to impose closetedness again in all but name. Perhaps they can also form Christian organizations dedicated to the Truth about gay marriage (and wear white robes and pointed hats) to terrorize any gays or supporters in “their” states. Until they have a sufficient armed force better than the Federal government’s, isn’t that what they would have to do? Is that what he is planning? I think Keyes would present an interesting figure in such a white robe.

    However, I suspect he wasn’t thinking about what would be needed, but merely ranting, which is likely all he would do.

  • k_machine

    Treason in Defense of Homophobia, this time around?

  • dingojack

    I thought ‘We had to burn the village, in order to save it’. fell out of favour in the 70’s.

    Dingo

  • http://festeringscabofrealityblogspot.com fifthdentist

    @4,

    I think he’s practicing for the annual “Faux Faulkner Contest” in which writers try to imitate William Faulkner’s style.

    Note to Alan: Needs lots more hyphens and semicolons. Also, the sentences are not nearly long enough or indecipherable enough.

    Why, man, it’s easy to figure out the meaning in no time. Despite a valiant and successful effort to produce a work of extreme gibberish, a reader almost immediately gets your meaning of: “Gays, bad. Thinking makes brain hurt.”

  • eric

    only alternative is to do what the South did after the Civil War to prevent blacks from using the civil rights that the Federal government imposed on them after the Noble Cause lost: lynching, burning houses and churches, harassing and jailing gays to impose closetedness again in all but name

    That’s my fear: not civil war or any other ridiculous claim that there’s going to be large scale conflict, but that some of the far right might respond to legalized SSM with vandalism, property damage, and assaults on gay people. Here’s hoping they are all bluster.

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

    [Scene: Bronx alleyway. Morning. Drizzling rain]

    Jerry Orbach: “This is a damn shame.”

    Uniformed Cop: “Someone vandalized this Gay Pride float…”

    Jerry Orbach [pointing to spraypainted scrawl on side of float]: “What’s that say?”

    Uniformed Cop: “I think it’s supposed to be ‘fag’.”

    Jerry Orbach: “A three letter word and the perp got all of them wrong? Run this through the Moron Database.”

    [Dunk dunk]

    In the Criminal Justice System the people are represented by two separate, yet equally important groups. The police who investigate crime and the District Attorneys who prosecute the offenders. These are their stories…

  • scienceavenger

    The United States Supreme Court may presently make a decision discarding marriage as an unalienable (natural) right. By defect of reason and respect for the Constitution…

    Um, and where in the Constitution is marriage listed as an unalienable right?

    Thought so.

  • Michael Heath

    scienceavenger writes:

    Um, and where in the Constitution is marriage listed as an unalienable right?

    Thought so.

    The 9th Amendment clearly declares that not all of our rights are numerated in the Constitution. The Constitution does not intend to list all of our rights or even all those rights the government must protect.

    David Boies and Ken Olson, who have been very successful winning pro-marriage cases in federal court, leverage the fact that prior decisions by the SCOTUS assert that that marriage is a fundamental (natural) right. IIRC, those precedents count up to something around 7 – 11 occerences.

    What Alan Keyes is doing here is mundane psychological projection. He’s falsely claiming that gay rights advocates are seeking to deny the protection of a fundamental/natural when it’s him and his ilk that seek to do that. I observe that conservative Christians perceive themselves to the be sole protectors of the Constitution where I instead see them as a primary opponent. Here Mr. Keyes illustrates that perfectly.

  • hrafn

    Before a “just cause for war” (Casus Belli) becomes even relevant (even assuming that gay marriage is one), don’t you first need to be a country with an army? One generally does not hear that phrase applied to civil wars, armed rebellions and the like.

  • StevoR

    Keyes: Gay Marriage a ‘Just Cause for War’

    What!? The. Fuck!?

  • StevoR

    it’s clear that he is openly hoping for another civil war.”

    Sure is. I’m hoping he’s keeping that to only hoping not acting – and I hope the authorities are watching him and fellow homophobes very carefully being ready to step in and prevent any hate crimes and terrorist atrocities they may be planning

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_of_the_Wolf podkayne

    And just who, exactly, is the war meant to be between?

  • Childermass

    With rhetoric like that there might also be a few murders.

  • Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden

    @ hrafn:

    Before a “just cause for war” (Casus Belli) becomes even relevant (even assuming that gay marriage is one), don’t you first need to be a country with an army? One generally does not hear that phrase applied to civil wars, armed rebellions and the like.

    Okay, let’s take a look at a document that may be incorporated by implicit reference into Keyes’ statements:

    In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

    Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. … They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

    We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, …, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; …; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, [and] conclude Peace …

    He’s analogizing himself to the founders. He’s not appealing to international law.

  • Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden

    Keyes better hope I never have a chance to interview him on audio or video.

    Me: Mr Keyes, you have said that a SCOTUS decision is a just cause for war, correct?

    Keyes: Yes, let me explain…

    Me: Hold on, I’m just trying to get to an important question, then you’ll have plenty of time to speak. Presumably, if you’re discussing war, this isn’t about hanging 5 or 6 or even 9 Justices as traitors. A war is nothing if not a larger, lethal conflict that takes place outside the niceties of law. Presumably, then, the “other side” is that group of people who advocated for this SCOTUS result.

    Keyes: I’m not arguing that everyone who ever voted for…

    Me: I’m not saying that you are, Mr Keyes. My question to you is this: if this is a war, there must be two sides. Your daughter is clearly on the other side.

    Keyes: Now, wait a minute…

    Me: No, you wait a minute, sir. Your time to speak is at hand, but not here. War is the murder of many, many human lives. Less than that might be a massacre or a serial killing, but not a war. You have argued that you have just cause to kill many people. My question is this: why is your daughter still alive?

    Keyes: That’s an unfair question…

    Me: Why is it unfair?

    Keyes: Of course my daughter doesn’t deserve to die because she exercised her first amendment rights to…

    Me: But then which people DO deserve to die for exercising their first amendment rights to petition the government for redress of grievances?

    Keyes: I was going to say free speech…

    Me: But the issue isn’t free speech, it’s that people asked for government action and the government responded. If the government hadn’t responded, according to you, there would not be a just cause for war. So the issue is the redress of grievances. Your daughter has appealed to the government for redress of grievances. The government has responded. That response is, in your words, a just cause for war. Why should the people who believed in your presidential campaign not kill your daughter?

    Ugh, it makes me shiver with the thought that someone would actually think I **am** arguing for the murder of his daughter, but it makes me feel worse that he can call for the murder of his own daughter and get away with it…as a “family values” politician, no less!

  • Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden

    Like the Dred Scott decision that heralded the onset of the first Civil War, the Court’s action will bring the nation to the brink,

    Fucking moron. Dred Scott didn’t herald the onset of the first Civil War*1. South Carolina got what it wanted in Dred Scott. There was no impetus to shell Fort Sumpter on the basis of Dred Scott.

    Yes, Alan Keyes, like South Carolina, is horribly regressive and willing to use violence to get his way. But South Carolina **got its way** in the Supreme Court in this case (as much as it could get its way, given that it wasn’t a party to the case). South Carolina got it’s way and decided to shoot a bunch of fellow citizens anyway because it feared that maybe, someday, it might not get its way despite prevailing at the Supreme Court.

    I don’t know how in the world Dred Scott heralded that South Carolinian action, nor do I know how Alan Keyes’ position being **defeated** at the Supreme Court level would be comparable to South Carolina being **vindicated** at the Supreme Court level.

    I just know that Alan Keyes is a fucking moron.