Staver’s Doubletalk on Same-Sex and Interracial Marriage

Mat Staver, the dumbest lawyer in America not named Larry Klayman, went on the Crosstalk radio show last week and tried to make a distinction between same-sex marriage and interracial marriage. He failed. Badly. The ban on same-sex marriage, you see, is “rooted in history” while the ban on miscegenation was, somehow, not.

He also addressed claims that the arguments in favor of the same-sex marriage bans are similar to the ones made defending bans on interracial marriage, which were also said to be based on moral, biblical teachings and not discriminatory in nature. Staver dubiously suggested that while homosexuality “has always been, up until recently been, described through millennia of human history as a crime against nature,” racial bias is not rooted in history.

“There is nothing historically or throughout our long history of Judeo-Christianity that says that someone who’s got dark skin can’t marry someone who’s got white skin or lighter color skin. That’s never been rooted in our history, that’s never been rooted in natural law, that’s never been rooted in millennia of human history,” Staver said. “Marriage is objectively, to use a philosophical term, ontologically, the union of a man and a woman. If you can’t get that right, good grief, how can you be a judge on any court?”

Oi vey. Interracial marriage was banned for centuries in this country, which means it was, by definition, rooted in history. And the arguments in favor of that ban were entirely based on so-called natural law (which really just means “whatever Christians believe at any given moment”). It was right there in the district court ruling in Loving v Virginia. It was there in the arguments in favor of such bans going back to the days when the states were still British colonies.

Oh, and anti-gay bigots are just like Rosa Parks:

On Tuesday’s edition of “Crosstalk,” Liberty Counsel’s Mat Staver urged the owners of an Oregon bakery who were fined for violating the state’s non-discrimination law when they denied service to a gay customer to refuse to pay the fine in an act of civil disobedience against an “unjust law.”

“If the government wants to come in and put Rosa Parks on the back of the bus, Rosa Parks shouldn’t move to the back of the bus,” Staver said. “If they are wanting to take Christians and put you on the back of the bus because of your faith, you shouldn’t voluntarily walk to the back of the bus.”

All of these comparisons to Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King are just so perverse. King and Parks were fighting against the right to legally discriminate. Staver is fighting for

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    Wrong. Rosa Parks and MLK, in the Montgomery Bus Boycott, fought for the Right of others to not let them on the bus.

  • John Pieret

    It was right there in the district court ruling in Loving v Virginia.

    Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

    And there was more from the trial court decision:

    [The Loving’s marriage] was a marriage prohibited and declared absolutely void. It was contrary to the declared public law, founded upon motives of public policy — a public policy affirmed for more than a Century, and one upon which social order, public morality and the best interests of both races depend. This unmistakable policy of the legislature founded, I think, on wisdom and the moral development of both races, has been shown by not only declaring marriages between whites and negroes absolutely void, but by prohibiting and punishing such unnatural alliances with severe penalties.

    Do arguments concerning “social order, public morality and the best interests of [fill in the blank]” sound familiar?

  • John Pieret

    A particularly nice touch of the decision of U.S. District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen striking down Virginia’s ban same-sex marriage was that she opened her decision with this:

    We made a commitment to each other in our love and lives, and now had the legal commitment, called marriage, to match. Isn’t that what marriage is? … I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation’s fears and prejudices have given way, and today’s young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry. Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the “wrong kind of person” for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. … I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.

    – Mildred Loving, “Loving for All,” Public Statement on the 40th Anniversary of Loving v. Virginia (June 12, 2007).

  • noahsarkive

    Wait, I’m confused…isn’t Larry Klayman the dumbest laywer in America not named Mat Staver??

  • DonDueed

    Noahsarkive: yes. Yes he is.

    It’s like that Escher drawing of the two hands drawing each other.

  • Michael Heath

    Ed writes:

    All of these comparisons to Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King are just so perverse.

    Here’s one example of how perverse they are. The Sarah Palin fans of 2008 that were adults in the 1960s, that I personally know, were John Birchers, in love with George Wallace, and claiming that MLK Jr. was all sorts horrible things just like they now defame President Obama.

    I distinctly remember these people’s defense of President Nixon prior to his resigning in disgrace. Mr. Nixon was the man of God while MLK Jr. was a commie subversive seeking to destroy our freedom.

    Some of us do not forget.

  • david

    Nehemiah 13:23-27

    Deuteronomy 7:3

    Ezra 9:1-15

    Daniel 2:43

    a little more subtle

    Genesis 1:11

    Leviticus 19:19

    Deuteronomy 22:9

    There’s more, if you look …

  • StevoR

    @2 & 3. John Pieret : Thankyou. Great powerful quotes there.

  • StevoR

    @7. David : I prefer

    1 Samuel 18:1 :

    “When David had finished speaking with Saul, Jonathan become deeply attached to David, and loved him with his whole being.”

    1 Samuel 18:3 :

    “Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as he loved himself.

    &

    1 Samuel 18:4 : “Jonathan stripped himself of the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with all the clothes he was wearing, even his sword, his bow, and his belt.”

    Plus 1 Samuel 20:41 : “They (David & Jonathan) kissed each other.”

    as well as 1 Samuel 20:42 : “Jonathan said to David, ‘Go in peace, for we have sworn in the name of Yahweh that Yahweh will bond you and me and your descendants and my descendants forever.’

    Source : http://www.thebricktestament.com/david_vs_saul/jonathan_and_david/1s20_42a.html (All quotes provided here albeit on different pages.)

    Seems even Yahwah ain’t an opponent of equal marriage after all.

    Jesus also made kinda a point of showing forgiveness and mercy especially when it came to punishing (or not) sexual “sins” with death.