Barber: Satan and Demons and Champagne, Oh My

One of the reactions to the Supreme Court’s ruling overturning state bans on same-sex marriage that I looked most forward to hearing was from Matt Barber. I knew it would be a tour de force of stupidity and hyperbole. Needless to say, he did not disappoint.

Satan is laughing himself silly right now. His demonic minions, both above and below, are popping the bubbly and clinking the champagne flutes.

Oh come on, really? You know damn well, Mr. Barber, that demonic minions do not drink champagne. They smoke dope. If you can’t get an important detail like that right, why should anyone bother to listen to you?

But this is my favorite part:

But I promised a silver lining, and there is one – a big one. One that is sure to infuriate the anti-Christian left. The majority opinion emphasized that this newfangled “right” to “gay marriage” should not be construed to trump religious liberty:

“Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons.”

I’m not naïve. We’ll have to see what this actually means in coming years, but when filtered through any honest reading of the First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause, what it means is that Christians cannot be forced to violate their conscience through compulsory participation in, or recognition of, counterfeit “gay weddings” or “marriages.”

Ever.

Yeah, I’m “infuriated” by that. I mean, other than the fact that this is exactly what I’ve been telling you and your fellow dishonest fear-mongerers when you’ve claimed, as you have ad nauseum and continue to do, that pastors will be forced to conduct gay weddings. So I assume that, from now on, you’ll stop making that claim and tell all your fellow bigots that they’re wrong when they make it, right Matt? Right? Yeah, I didn’t think so.

Follow Us!
POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Morgan

    Christians cannot be forced to violate their conscience through compulsory participation in, or recognition of, counterfeit “gay weddings” or “marriages.”

    I’m assuming this part is incorrect, or correct in a fairly limited sense, but I’m not sure under what circumstances it’d come up. When might someone be obliged to “recognize” another’s marriage, and is there such an occasion where saying “sorry, as far as I’m concerned, you’re not actually married” wouldn’t constitute illegal discrimination? If Barber’s not just blowing hot air on this, it seems like a worrying loophole for people to be denied the actual benefits of now-legal marriages.

  • hunter

    Morgan: If, as I suspect, he’s referring to official government recognition, any official who thinks they have an out by claiming “religious freedom” is going to run smack into the Establishment Clause.

  • http://www.thelosersleague.com theschwa

    counterfeit “gay weddings” or “marriages.”

    Silly argument. That is exactly why Obama started his brown-shirtted Wedding Stasi. Just make sure you get a state-issued certificate of authenticity, proving you have a genuine gay wedding or marriage.

  • http://artk.typepad.com ArtK

    @Morgan

    If the Christian under discussion is a public employee or operates a public accommodation (hotel, bakery, photographic studio, etc.) then they must, like every non-Christian in the same kind of job, recognize the legal reality of any marriage. They are still free to rant and rave about it, as long as they do so in their capacity as private citizens. They’re free to think SSM is disgusting, as long as they do their jobs. They can refuse to regard two people as not married as long as they do it as private citizens. They’ve always been able to do that and nothing there has changed.

    Unfortunately, the religious right has pushed the notion of “religious freedom” to try and give the hypothetical Christian in my previous paragraph an “out.” “Sincerely held religious belief” and all that BS. What we end up with is a conflict in rights and it’ll go back to SCOTUS again. Probably more than once.

  • raven

    When might someone be obliged to “recognize” another’s marriage, and is there such an occasion where saying “sorry, as far as I’m concerned, you’re not actually married” wouldn’t constitute illegal discrimination?

    They keep saying they don’t believe in gay marriage.

    Who cares and why should they?

    After all, we don’t believe in their gods or religion. We don’t believe their opinions have any merits. And we don’t believe their perversion of xianity has anything worthwhile to say about modern life.

  • Morgan

    Thanks ArtK, that’s more or less what I figured. It’s cases like religious organizations, schools, charities, etc. where I suspect there may be explicit exemptions carved out, and I wonder how far they extend.

    raven:

    They keep saying they don’t believe in gay marriage.

    Who cares and why should they?

    Well, if I were married to someone of the same sex and hospital staff weren’t letting me see them because they didn’t consider us “really” married, I’d certainly care about that. I don’t think I’d be wrong to do so.

  • sigurd jorsalfar

    But I promised a silver lining, and there is one – a big one. One that is sure to infuriate the anti-Christian left. The majority opinion emphasized that this newfangled “right” to “gay marriage” should not be construed to trump religious liberty

    Congratulations are clearly in order to modusoperandi for scoring his new job as speech writer to Matt Barber. Well done, modus!

  • raven

    Well, if I were married to someone of the same sex and hospital staff weren’t letting me see them because they didn’t consider us “really” married, I’d certainly care about that. I don’t think I’d be wrong to do so.

    Another murdered strawperson.

    They have a right to their opinion. They don’t have a right to consider their opinion to be US law.

    They don’t have a right to be taken seriously either.

  • John Pieret

    You know damn well, Mr. Barber, that demonic minions do not drink champagne. They smoke dope.

    This demonic minion always thought champagne and dope went well together..

  • Die Anyway

    I’m getting fat from all of the popcorn and champagne as I watch this wingnut circus.. I’m not sure which is more entertaining… the fallout from the SSM decision or the Repukelican presidential race.

  • Morgan

    Another murdered strawperson.

    “Another”? Where was the first? You may not be having the conversation you think you are, here.

    Why should we care about bigots’ opinions of of same-sex marriage? Because they act on them. Because that results in discrimination and injustice. Because the law does not perfectly forbid either, and even if it did, seeking redress after the fact may be cold comfort. Real people will certainly suffer real harm because of the prejudice you seem to think is ignorable. I’m asking to what extent US law enables that.

  • Loqi

    The imagery of demons clinking their bongs together just doesn’t have the same impact.

  • http://Www.metalmischief.com YOB – Ye Olde Blacksmith (Social Justice Jaegerkin)

    …Christians cannot be forced to violate their conscience through compulsory participation in, or recognition of, counterfeit “gay weddings” or “marriages.”

    He thinks that’s an out for the bigoted bakers, florists, photographers, etc.

  • sigurd jorsalfar

    Demons don’t get no kick from champagne. Everyone knows demons drink rum.

  • abb3w

    @1ish, Morgan

    When might someone be obliged to “recognize” another’s marriage, and is there such an occasion where saying “sorry, as far as I’m concerned, you’re not actually married” wouldn’t constitute illegal discrimination?

    I’m not a lawyer; however….

    Under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, a religious panjandrum can decide whether or not his/her church recognizes the “marriage” as valid or not for ecclesiastical purposes. So, if the Third Church of the Blibbering Idiot does not recognize gay marriages, local Reverend Bumblewits may decide that Adam and Steve Jones are ineligible to be married in his church, or (once married by the local justice of the peace) ineligible participate in the parish’s annual Blessing Of The Still Married, but rule them eligible for the Blessing Of The Hopeful Bachelors.

    Contrariwise, if Reverend Bumblewits hires Steve Jones as the janitor for the local chapel-house, he has to extend the same spousal employment benefits as are extended to other married employees — since the state recognizes Adam as Steve’s husband. Reverend Bumblewits might or might not be able to refuse to hire Steve beforehand, depending on the state’s nondiscrimination law and how persuasively the law firm of Dewey, Chatham, Fisher, and Howe can argue on behalf of Reverend Bumblewits that the janitor is a ministerial position (fat chance, better odds for a teacher at the church’s private school). However, once hired, discrimination would likely be grounds for a civil suit for monetary damages.

  • daved

    So, if the Third Church of the Blibbering Idiot does not recognize gay marriages,

    Die, heretic scum!

  • John Pieret

    abb3w @ 15:

    Your second paragraph only applies if 1) the Third Church of the Blibbering Idiot is located in one of the relatively rare jurisdictions that have an anti-discrimination law or ordinance that includes gays and lesbians as a protected class (there is no Federal statute that includes LGBT people) and 2) said law or ordinance doesn’t have an exception for “religious organizations” (which many do).

  • slavdude

    Satan is laughing himself silly right now.

    I thought he only did that the day the music died.

  • abb3w

    @17, John Pieret

    Your second paragraph only applies

    Possibly; at the very least, such discrimination would seem an engraved invitation for Steve to contact Lambda Legal. More poking Google also turns up Hall v BNSF, which (at last word in Google Scholar) considered it at least a plausible federal claim. Contrariwise, title VII does have such an exception; nohow, its language seems likely to limit the allowable discrimination to the ministerial positions I noted.

    Regardless, there’s a reason I regularly note that that I’m not a lawyer.

  • jnorris

    Even if the Third Church of the Blibbering Idiot did not recognize Adam and Steve Jones’ marriage, the church will still expect them to tithe and will take their coin. For blessed are those who cash up for the second collection.

  • theignored

    In hell (or Baator), they actually do have their own wine:

    Baatorian Blood Wine – A very unique crimson red wine that has a pungent, roasted, fruity aroma with just a hint of an acidic tingle in the nostrils. The dark of this drink claims that a body can mildly resist heat and acid for a time. This particular vintage sells for 500 gp a bottle or 65 gp a goblet.

    http://www.dragonarmyone.com/Home/index/planescape/sylvania-arborea