Staver Suddenly Doesn’t Accept Polls, Warns of GOP Split

Mat Staver, the dumbest lawyer in America not named Larry Klayman, did an interview with the Worldnetdaily in which he reacted to a new poll that shows 60% of Americans support marriage equality and think gay people were born that way. His reaction was quite predictable.

Despite these findings, which are in line with other polls showing majority approval for same-sex marriage, Staver told Corombos that he doesn’t believe the polls since they “under-report” opposition to gay rights.

But he added that it doesn’t even matter if a majority of people believe homosexuality is innate because there is “no evidence” that gay people are born that way. “It wouldn’t matter if a poll said that people believe that the earth was flat with respect to whether or not they believe that homosexuality was something with which you were born,” he said.

Isn’t it funny how quickly the religious right abandons majoritarianism when public opinion shifts against them. They scream endlessly about the “will of the majority” and how inviolable it is and how it’s tyranny if you don’t bow to it…right up until the majority is against them, and then suddenly it’s meaningless because, ya know, the only vote that really matters is God’s.

Staver also predicted that a conservative “splinter group that will ultimately no longer support the Republican Party” will form if the GOP backtracks on its opposition to gay marriage, while noting the “good news” that party leaders and presidential candidates remain opposed to legalizing same-sex marriage.

I don’t doubt that’s true, but given the trends in public opinion on the question of LGBT equality, what choice do they have? If the Republican party continues to pander to the anti-gay right, they’ll lose everyone else. This is identical to what happened to the Democrats after the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964. They lost most of the hardcore racist vote, which moved to the Republicans, but they survived. In the end, bigotry always loses.

"I have a solution. Since, these statues are obvious there so we don't forget history, ..."

Barton’s Bizarre Diatribe on Confederate Statues
"Well, I would make more edits, but Disqus doesn't let me change other people's comments. ..."

Barton’s Bizarre Diatribe on Confederate Statues
""What does God need with an irony meter?" ~ Captain Kirk, Startrek V: The Final ..."

Barton’s Bizarre Diatribe on Confederate Statues
"What is he on about? Doesn't he know that all of those guys with torches ..."

Cernovich: Charlottesville was Government Plot to ..."
Follow Us!
POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • John Pieret

    And, of course, he’s asserting that people only get civil rights if they are based on an innate characteristic (and, naturally, ignoring the evidence that sexual orientation is innate), while screaming that his “lifestyle choice” of conservative Christianity has to be protected from the slightest imposition.

  • hunter

    Wow — this one’s so full of BS that it’s not even parsable. (Well, it is, but I’m on a tight schedule.)

    However, about that “conservative splinter group”: They did that. It’s called . . . well, it’s called “the Republican party.”

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

    John Pieret, Us Conservative Christians don’t choose to be Conservative Christians. God made Us that way. Checkmate, homosexualists!

  • http://www.thelosersleague.com theschwa

    “Staver told Corombos that he doesn’t believe the polls since they “under-report” opposition to gay rights.”

    If only someone would unskew those polls!

  • http://drx.typepad.com Dr X

    I thought his country was destroyed in 1865.

  • raven

    Staver Suddenly Doesn’t Accept Polls, Warns of GOP Split

    It’s Mat Staver, He is always wrong.

    1. The christofascists always threaten to leave. It never happens.

    2. They already have their own party, the god-Constitution party of neoconfederate Peroutka. They got a small fraction of a percent in national elections.

    3. They don’t have any choice. It’s the GOP or nothing. It’s not like anyone else wants them.

  • llewelly

    But this is where gerrymandering traps the GOP. Many districts are drawn so that they cannot be won unless candidates appeal to conservatism. Those districts will probably lag well behind the national averages. So, even after the GOP abandons opposition to marriage equality at a state level, in most red states, prospective GOP politicians will still not be able to get into the state legislatures unless they appeal to bigotry. And the problem will persist for some of the seats of the federal House, too. GOP politicians that start out in those conservative areas will build up a long track record of bigotry, and thus won’t be able to progress as far up.

  • whheydt

    If only he turns out to be right about the religious RWNJs splltting off from the Republicans. There would be a chance they could quite being the ‘party of stupid’.

  • raven

    The fundie xians aren’t any where near as powerful as they claim or think.

    1. The latest poll showed “Evangelicals” at 25% of the population. They aren’t even a majority of US xians and in fact, a lot of US xians don’t like them at all. Most Obama voters were…xians.

    2. Not all Evangelicals are…fundie xians., although there is high overlap.

    20% of the Evangelicals voted for Obama!!!

    3. In the last election, the GOP clown car was full of the worst our society can produce, christofascists like Bachmann, Satanorum, Huckabee, Perry, etc.. The adults of the party nominated a nonxian, a Reptilian Mormon Wall Streeter.

    Which the fundies cheerfully voted for anyway. You can be another religion as long as you hate the right groups.

    4. I’m sure if there are any adults left in the GOP, they will do it again. The fundie candidates will have their circus and someone who can appear normal for whole hours at a time will get the nomination.

    You can already see it happening. Zombies from the political graveyards are appearing. Jeb Bush (unbelievable IMO), Chafee of Rhode Island, Pataki from New York.

    5. Will it work? Who knows. It all depends on whether there are enough adults left in the GOP.

  • eric

    1. The christofascists always threaten to leave. It never happens.

    Buchanan tried a split off in 2000, and even with the Reform Party machinery having been in place for 8 years before that, he failed miserably. Nobody left with him.

    But same sex marriage seems to be a pretty polarizing issue, so I’ll give some outside chance to them getting huffy for one election cycle. Maybe lowering turnout or registering a protest vote for some third party/unaffiliated candidate. But I don’t think its likely, and if it does happen, I don’t think it’ll last more than one presidential election; if it does happen, they’ll grumpily return to the fold in 2020.

  • abb3w

    There are the studies on social desirability bias and the related Bradley effect, which might alter the poll data. Contrariwise, the recent state referrenda on gay marriage (such as in Maine, Minnesota, and North Carolina) lined up pretty well to the results of the polls. He appears to be assuming his conclusion that the polls underreport the opposition, without reliable evidence to substantiate that this underreporting (if any) is at all comparable in magnitude to the that of the difference between support and opposition.

    @2, hunter

    However, about that “conservative splinter group”: They did that. It’s called . . . well, it’s called “the Republican party.”

    The “Constitution Party” looks a lot closer to fitting the bill.

  • whheydt

    Re: raven @ #9….

    Chafee is a Democrat. He has actually floated an interesting campaign issue. He wants the US to convert to using the metric system. (So far as I know, *officially* we do, though in a lot of practice we don’t.) It’s a good idea, but not a new one. There have been efforts to go metric ever since the system was set up in the late 18th century.

  • garnetstar

    The Tea partiers are going to have to split from the rest of the Republicans at some point anyway, their policies and purity tests are not sustainable. That is, if the Republicans choose to survive as a party, they may well not.

    And that’ll split the vote on the right for a while, but a mainstream-conservative party will drift back. That’s what happens, the Democrats did something similiar in the 1980’s.

    If the Republicans were smart (yeah, I know), they’d start this process ASAP. Instead, they’ve chosen to drift over to where the tea party extreme is, so as to make the process of re-centering that much more difficult.

  • whheydt

    Re: garnetstart @ #13…

    The alternative is for the non-crazy part of the Republican party to split and form a new party and leave the Republican party in the dust bin of history, like the Whigs from whom the Republicans sprang. Their real risk is that it has the potential to leave the political right in the US pretty thoroughly out of power for a generation or more.

  • garnetstar

    whheydt @14 Yeah, that’s what I mean. One way or another, they’ll split.

    And yeah, the vote on the right will be split and the right will be less in-power for a fairly long time. That’s what happened in the 80’s when the Democrats cut off from their left wing. Bill Clinton was a big advocate then of moving the Democrats more to the center, and look where that got him, in just 12 years.

    But the right is just making it more difficult on themselves by moving over to their extreme and hovering there, they’ll be out of power longer by not doing this necessary transition now. If it gets to the point where the mainstream right has to abandon their well-known “Republican” brand name and strike out on their own in a new party, it’ll be that much more difficult, and take that much longer, to get back into power.

    But, as I say, if they had any brains they would have figured this out already and cut off the tea party wing.

  • typecaster

    The alternative is for the non-crazy part of the Republican party to split…

    Assumes facts not in evidence. Citation required.

  • John Hinkle

    But he added that it doesn’t even matter if a majority of people believe homosexuality is innate because there is “no evidence” that gay people are born that way.

    He has a point. I don’t know what it is, but I’m sure there’s a point there.

  • blf

    Typically, when a gang of thugs has a schism and splits into two or more gangs, don’t they then increase the mutual hostilities? With this gang being enthusiastic gun fondlers with a side-order of warmongering, that would suggest the incoherent shouting in the echo chamber could turn amusing as they literally shoot their own feet (you can’t aim with your head stuck so far up your own arse you can see out of your mouth).

  • vereverum

    “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!”

    .

    a 7-16-2014 contributor from The Hill:

    A man who stood up for liberty, no matter the personal cost — Barry Goldwater was a great man, whose Tea Party fruit spring from the tree of liberty he planted 50 years ago.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/uncategorized/212468-extremism-in-the-defense-of-liberty-is-still-no-vice

  • eric

    @13:

    The Tea partiers are going to have to split from the rest of the Republicans at some point anyway, their policies and purity tests are not sustainable.

    I disagree; they have done much better as an opposition group within the party than they ever could’ve done outside of it. They’ve gotten 46 Congresscritters and 5 Senators elected as representatives of their movement, and that’s approximately 50 more elected representatives than any modern third party (the Reform Party got Jesse Ventura elected). They would be fools to leave; their strategy of putting up primary challenges in ‘safe’ Republican districts has been so much more effective than third party campaigns that they make the Greens, Constitution Party, and Reform Party look like 6-year-olds. Frankly, liberal groups should be emulating them and doing the same in safe Democratic districts.

    Now, does all of that mean they won’t leave? No, they could. You are right that they seemed so concerned with ideological purity that it may cause them to leave. But from a realpolitik perspective, they shouldn’t leave; they have far more political influence on the US writ large from within the GOP than they will ever have if they leave it.

    If the Republicans were smart (yeah, I know), they’d start this process ASAP.

    Its not a monolith. Take SSM, for example; I think the party apparatus would love to “start the process (of acceptance of SSM) asap.” But some of the more conservative candidates simply refuse to go along with that – heck they even refuse to go along with not mentioning it – and there’s not much the party can do about it.

  • dingojack

    “It wouldn’t matter if a poll said that people believe that the earth was flat with respect to whether or not they believe that homosexuality was something with which you were born”.

    Oh good, so you’re admitting that your (hypothetical) poll asking a completely irrelevant question in respect to a completely different irrelevant proposition is -frankly – irrelevant. Tell us something we don’t already know Mat!

    @@Dingo