Matt Walsh: Gay Marriage Still Doesn’t Exist

Of all the arguments used by the opponents of same-sex marriage, I think my favorite is the “God defined marriage, so there are no same-sex marriages no matter what the court says” argument. Matt Walsh makes that very argument at Glenn Beck’s site in the wake of Friday’s ruling.

“Gay Marriage Still Doesn’t Exist, No Matter What the Supreme Court Says,” the headline screams.

But whatever the Supreme Court says, the Truth remains the same: There is no right to gay marriage. There is no gay marriage. It’s not real. It’s not possible.

It’s make-believe. It means nothing.

You might say it doesn’t matter now because the Supreme Beings have spoken, but I happen to think that Truth always matters. Despite what any judge says; despite the prevailing opinion; despite the surveys and polls and consensuses; the Truth still matters. If it doesn’t, then nothing matters and life is pointless. Your existence has no meaning if the Truth is irrelevant. There is no reason for you to be on this planet if there is no Truth worth fighting for.

And the Truth is that, due to the fundamental nature of human rights, marriage, and homosexuality, a union between two homosexuals is not, has never been, and will never be a legitimate marriage.

Then why are you still throwing a tantrum about it? If those marriages don’t actually exist, despite the signed marriage license and official legal status and all, you’re whining about absolutely nothing. You can continue on your merry way, pretending that they don’t exist. You can just put on your God-colored glasses and all those gay couples just magically disappear. I just wish I could pretend that bigots don’t exist.

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

    Ronnie McDonald defines eating, so junk food doesn’t exist.

  • raven

    I think my favorite is the “God defined marriage, so there are no same-sex marriages no matter what the court says” argument.

    If that is true, then why do the fundies even care? They are contradicting themselves right here.

    It’s make-believe. It means nothing.

    Since the gods don’t exist, that describes Matt Walsh’s religion nicely. And we wouldn’t care about his fantasies if he didn’t keep trying to force them on the rest of us.

  • wreck

    “Then why are you still throwing a tantrum about it?”

    Because some bigot might have to bake a gay cake or deliver some gay flowers or make a bunch of gay pizzas, or the worst, work on a gay pickup truck. The horrors!

  • dingojack

    I happen to think that Truth always matters. Despite what any judge says; despite the prevailing opinion; despite the surveys and polls and consensuses; the Truth still matters. If it doesn’t, then nothing matters and life is pointless. Your existence has no meaning if the Truth is irrelevant. There is no reason for you to be on this planet if there is no Truth worth fighting for.

    Well Matty, you’re right. The truth does matter. It’s just that you’re not accepting it as being true because of your religiously-based bigotry.

    As for truth and the meaning of life, well personally, don’t that there is any grand meaning – but I could be wrong. We have a powerful tool that allows us to find the answers to this and all the other grand, sweeping, cosmic questions —

    it’s called science.

    Welcome to the 21st century (I hope the cultural jump forward of some 12 centuries was not too jarring for you.)

    Dingo

  • Jared James

    “Jerkoff Mentally Masturbates So Other Jerkoffs Will Admire His Technique” is not exactly a new headline or activity.

  • Larry

    Denial of reality is strong with this one.

    Move along. Nothing to see here.

  • Sastra

    What do you want to bet this guy also doesn’t believe in atheists?

    It would be the only way he could acknowledge ‘secular’ marriages — which also don’t exist because God is always there, hiding and looking like make-believe nothing as usual.

  • D. C. Sessions

    So, and I want to be clear on this, you’re arguing about the name of the thing that the State sets up to control inheritance, power of attorney, next of kin, etc.?

    Well, then, by all means pass a law calling it something else. Or call it something else in your church. I believe that there’s a Hebrew word you could use; the Jews have been doing that for a long time, with Hebrew words for specifically religious things. Try it — you might like it.

  • jnorris

    D.C., when I was growing up in the Catholic Church, they called their marriage sacrament Holy Matrimony. The religious could use matrimony for their church ritual and everyone else can use marriage.

  • John Pieret

    There is no gay marriage.

    You just keep saying that over and over and maybe Tinker Bell official bigotry will come back to life.

  • https://plus.google.com/107095827599382907783 NS Alito

    Naive-me wonders why the conservative Catholics haven’t pointed out that the RCC has long had a parallel religious concept of marriage. American citizens could be civilly married and divorced will-he-nil-he independent of the Church’s rules, which had their own definitions of marriage and annulment (divorce was and is still a no-no, sacramentally speaking).

  • Pierce R. Butler

    Our wonderful leading Libertarian light agrees with Matt Walsh, proposing that the government refuse to recognize marriages entirely, homo- and hetero-sexual equally.

    I can just see a newly elected President Paul (the phrase sends shivers down spines everywhere!) decreeing that military spouses will not get living quarters, health care, death benefits, or PX shopping privileges under his administration; that civilian survivors’ benefits will cease (even before the rest of Social Security and poverty relief do so); and that the First Lady will have to go out and get a job and find her own housing, the lazy slut.

  • Doug Little

    Ahhh yes Truth with a capital T that has as much to do with reality as Arby’s has to do with fine cuisine.

  • sugarfrosted

    @12 Oh yes the “taking the ball and going home” approach to civil rights. It always comes up after they lose.

  • scienceavenger

    Colbert has to be blowing a gasket right now that he can’t make use of all this material. Then again, this does seem to be beyond satire.

  • RickR

    I was having a discussion with someone over at Patheos regarding the marriage equality ruling, and somebody came by and dropped this comment-

    ‘”Evolve?” Sorry, ain’t buying what you’re selling. Nothing has changed. Marriage is one woman and one man in a committed union before God and man. Period.”

    I didn’t reply because, seriously, what is there to say to that?

    (I had used the word evolve when talking about the changing nature of social institutions over time, and apparently I set off the Fundie Bat Signal™.)

  • naturalcynic

    scienceavenger: Your wish has been granted: New Colbert video

  • D. C. Sessions

    RickR, I like to use the word “evolution” around the fundies whenever I can. Especially regarding military formations.

  • raven

    RickR, I like to use the word “evolution” around the fundies whenever I can.

    Religion is one of the best nonbiological examples of evolution!!!

    Canaanite religion goes to Judaism, Catholic xianity, Protestant, Mormon, FLDS. Thanks to evolution there are now 42,000 xian sects in an ever evolving and expanding cloud of silliness.

    Religion evolves quite rapidly because it isn’t anchored to reality. Beliefs can change in a day and change back a day later. The latest example is the fundie anti-gay crusade. This is new, really only evolving in the last 10 years or so. I’m sure fundieism will evolve a new hate list soon enough.

  • raven

    ‘”Evolve?” Sorry, ain’t buying what you’re selling. Nothing has changed. Marriage is one woman and one man in a committed union before God and man. Period.”

    It’s OK not to believe in gay marriage.

    After all we don’t believe in their gods, their religion, or their ability to think their way out of paper bag.

    PS It’s wrong anyway. Biblical marriage is between one man and however many wives and sex slaves he can round up.

  • lorn

    Now… what were those stages, I can never remember … oh yeah … now I remember: denial, anger, bargaining, despair, and acceptance.

  • dan4

    @20: “After all we don’t believe in their gods,…”

    “Gods?” The person you’re responding to is clearly a monotheist. That’s even made clear in the part of his comment you yourself chose to highlight (“….a committed union before God and man.”).

  • Vicki, duly vaccinated tool of the feminist conspiracy

    dan4 @22:

    They may be monotheists, but it sure looks as though those assorted monotheists are worshiping several different gods who happen to use the same name, but give different instructions to their followers. (Not every human named Jim Smith is the same person, and there are lots of different places called “Elm Street.”)

  • dingojack

    Dear Dan – ‘their‘ is a third-person plural, therefore Raven was referring to a disbelief in all gods believed in by all religious types, including (but not restricted to) those of the (unnamed) person quoted.

    You still haven’t seen your local librarian about your reading comprehension issues, have you?

    Dingo

  • dan4

    @24: Uh, except raven’s “their gods” comment was in response to a SINGLE MONOTHEISTIC PERSON, not a cross-section of people belonging to “all religious types.” My goodness, either you are extremely stupid or you are disagreeing with me solely for the sake of disagreeing with me.

  • Michael Heath

    dan4 writes:

    raven’s “their gods” comment was in response to a SINGLE MONOTHEISTIC PERSON

    raven’s correct. The type of Christianity raven referenced believes in God the father, son, and Holy Ghost. Two of these entities, on the terms asserted by these same Christians, have different states of mind and have been distinctly separate in their physical locality. Additionally, Genesis also refers to multiple gods which these same Christians irrationally claim is the inerrant word of God.

    What’s incoherent is these same Christians simultaneously claiming there is one god while referring to multiple entities from two different perspectives; and you lapping that up.

  • dingojack

    Dan – get in touch with your local librarian and seek help for your manifest reading difficulties. Once they’ve been solved, then I’ll respond to your blatherings.

    That is all.

    Dingo

  • dan4

    @27: Give it up. Raven was responding to an individual monotheist, so there is no reference point in said response to use the third-person plural. You (probably) know this, but you want to disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing with me.

  • dingojack

    No Dan – you just can’t read for comprehension — but no surprise there!

    Seriously, get help.

    Dingo