The Dumbest Argument Yet From Mat Staver?

Mat Staver, the dumbest lawyer in America not named Larry Klayman, may have come up with his dumbest argument yet. I know, that’s hard to quantify and it’s up against a lot of competition, but this may be it. In an article about secular celebrants performing marriages, he somehow makes it about The Gay.

A lawsuit by an atheist seeking to perform legal marriages suggests the impact homosexual “marriage” could have on pastors if it’s recognized nationwide.

Uh, no. It doesn’t. The two issues have nothing remotely to do with one another.

Citing equal treatment under the law, a Minnesota atheist filed suit for the legal right to perform civil marriage ceremonies…

Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel argues that in a different respect, the lawsuit suggests what might happen if the Supreme Court rules against normal marriage in just a few weeks.

“There frankly is a brief before the Supreme Court that was filed by a law professor that questions that very thing,” he advises. “That if same-sex marriage is legalized, the question is whether or not pastors and other churches would have to perform same-sex ceremonies.”

He predicts that’s a line that pastors will not cross but it’s a “conflict in the making.”

If the “civil right” of a homosexual marriage wins over religious freedom, says Staver, then religious freedom is lost and with it the “heart and soul of America.”

This is so baffling that one has to wonder if Charlie Butts, the “reporter” who wrote the article, was working on two articles, one about secular celebrants and one about same-sex marriage, and pasted Staver’s statement about same-sex marriage into the one about secular celebrants. There isn’t even a hint of a whisper of a logical connection between the subject of the article and Staver’s quote. Butts could have quoted Staver talking about his favorite flavor of ice cream and it would be as relevant as what he said here.

"That's a very big "IF" there as noted by others here."

Christian Right Still Oblivious to Their ..."
""In Mexico, if you're born poor you die poor."Seems they want to make the US ..."

Orrin Hatch is Terribly Offended
"Made a shit load of money for himself."

Orrin Hatch is Terribly Offended
"Except the teacher who was too pretty to go to prison. I would have . ..."

Pastor: Accusations Against Moore Part of ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • sigurd jorsalfar

    And if he had been quoted talking about his favorite flavor of ice cream, Staver being Staver, it would still be stupid and offensive.

  • DukeOfOmnium

    Not true. Liverwurst-pecan ice cream is delicious, and Staver would defended it brilliantly.

  • John Pieret

    The Dumbest Argument Yet From Mat Staver?

    Give him time, Ed, just give him time!

    “There frankly is a brief before the Supreme Court that was filed by a law professor that questions that very thing,” he advises. “That if same-sex marriage is legalized, the question is whether or not pastors and other churches would have to perform same-sex ceremonies.”

    So, if there are secular celebrants to perform icky gay marriages, they are saving the poor pastors from such an evil fate? And that isn’t a good thing … how? It couldn’t be something to do with competition, could it?

  • matty1

    I think I see the thought process. Possibly he is ignorant enough to think marriage belongs to churches and that currently only a pastor can officiate. If that were true and all pastors refused to do gay weddings then expanding the class of people who can officiate would make those weddings possible.

  • StevoR

    If the “civil right” of a homosexual marriage wins over religious freedom, says Staver, then religious freedom is lost and with it the “heart and soul of America.”

    How exactly?

    No really Matt Staver, exactly how is that supposed to work?

    (Oh well, looks like Catholic Ireland has just lost its religious freedom then. Because all those Catholcis voted for equal marriage and that means .. um tyranny ..because ,well, erm, ah .. eh .. dunno, ask Matt Staver!)

  • StevoR

    Dangnabbit blockquote? What happened to you!?

  • k_machine

    (Oh well, looks like Catholic Ireland has just lost its religious freedom then. Because all those Catholcis voted for equal marriage and that means .. um tyranny ..because ,well, erm, ah .. eh .. dunno, ask Matt Staver!)

    It’s simple: when things don’t go your way it’s the Tyranny of the Majority, and if they go your way it’s the Glorious Will of the Free People.

  • dingojack

    Stevo – <a href=”[address]”>[label]</a> … 😉

    I suspect that Staver confuses the two issues in his own mind. He assumes:

    a) all religious celebrants share his own beliefs on the ‘dangers’ of marriage equality

    b) all will follow his ‘principled stand’ on the issue, because even those who don’t publically share his views, secretly can see that they are righteous

    c) because no-one will officiate at weddings he disapproves of, the state will either:

    …c1) force religious celebrants to conduct marriages of which he doesn’t approve

    …c2) create a new non-religious alternative to by-pass “god’s law”

    if c2 occurs, ‘the evil one’ will deceive the people into accepting it en masse, thus under-cutting the hoped for glorious martyrdom of the righteous masses* that will be the trigger for coming of god’s kingdom on Earth.

    Possibility c2 can not be allowed to occur, because it would prevent his vindication and exultation before his detractors. Classic narcissistic psychopathy.

    [Here endth the lesson in arm-chair psychology].

    Dingo

    ———

    * but he, being one of ‘the elect’, will be spared by god himself to be a leader in the next phase.

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

    Look, if the 14th Amendment “allows” Athiests to perform so-called “civil” marriages, it also “allows” homos to force pastors to sanctify their so-called “Holy Marriages”. That’s just common sense.

  • chilidog99

    Speaking of Larry Klayman, “Grossly Inappropriate Larry” is up to his sleazy short eyes in the Arpaio contempt of court case.

    That one is worth watching.

  • dingojack

    Chilidog: more like this I would say.

    😉 Dingo

  • shay

    The Dumbest Argument Yet From Mat Staver?

    I have to agree with John P. — give him time. Hard as it may be to believe, Staver’s probably got unplumbed depths.

  • John Pieret

    Ooh! …ooh!

    Now we have the most dire apocalypse threat yet!!!!!

    We have come to the conclusion that God has directed leaders across this nation to simply communicate eight words: ’40 more days and America will be destroyed.’ That’s what He instructed us to say. But there still is hope if we believe that God will have mercy on us if we humbly turn back to Him and the ways of our Founding Fathers.

    http://barbwire.com/2015/05/23/1100-one-word-captures-how-christians-continue-confidently-amidst-cultural-collapse/

    Oh, dang! 40 days is July 1, 2015. We’re gonna miss the 4th and all the fireworks and BBQ!

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

    John Pieret “‘But there still is hope if we believe that God will have mercy on us if we humbly turn back to Him and the ways of our Founding Fathers.'”

    Forty days isn’t a lot of time to repeal all those Amendments.

  • favog

    Yeah, how does giving homosexuals a secular option force religious officials to perform gay marriages? I’m pretty sure it would lessen that pressure … oh, that’s right, Ed said this guy was stupid. That explains it.

  • dingojack

    favog – see my ‘arm-chair psychology’ in #8

    Dingo