Hatemongers tell the Supreme Court they intend to defy any law that allows gay people to marry.

200 anti-gay people have signed a letter to the Supreme Court expressing their intent to defy the law if equality for gays is realized.  The letter reads:

As the Supreme Court acknowledged in the 1992 decision of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, its power rests solely upon the legitimacy of its decisions in the eyes of the people. If the Supreme Court were to issue a decision that redefined marriage or provided a precedent on which to build an argument to redefine marriage, the Supreme Court will thereby undermine its legitimacy. The Court will significantly decrease its credibility and impair the role it has assumed for itself as a moral authority. It will be acting beyond its proper constitutional role and contrary to the Natural Moral Law which transcends religions, culture, and time.

Imagine that, a group of followers of the humbling religion of Christianity insisting that their faith makes them above the law.  Humbling.  Totally.  I’m shocked there are no random capital letters.  Progress.

Worse, the letter ends with a clear threat that conservatives will refuse to comply with any court ruling in support of marriage equality: “[M]ake no mistake about our resolve. While there are many things we can endure, redefining marriage is so fundamental to the natural order and the true common good that this is the line we must draw and one we cannot and will not cross.”

Oh, they’ll refuse to comply?  And what does that look like, exactly?  Two married men walking down the street and the bigot yells “I don’t acknowledge your marriage!” and then sprints off to bigot-friendly sanctuary of his church?  The state’s going to issue gay people certificates of marriage one day.  You don’t have to comply.  It’s going to happen.

And part of the irony is who signed the damn thing.

In addition to designated hate group leaders like Family Research Council president Tony Perkins and Traditional Values Coalition chairman Rev. Louis Sheldon, the list included Tea Party activist Ben Carson, Oklahoma State Rep. Sally Kern (R), former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell (R), former Republican presidential candidate Gary Bauer, conservative movement legend Richard Viguerie, Focus on the Family founder Rev. James Dobson, birther Joseph Farah, and disgraced Abramoff scandal figure Ralph Reed.

Oh look!  Some of those people got elected to office (or failed to get elected to office) talking about how much they, and not their unpatriotic opponents, loved America and especially the Constitution.  And now look at them, ready to defy the document they swore to uphold when it results in things they don’t like.

There are special jobs in society created just for people who refuse to obey the law: judges and police.  These people enforce the law regardless of how proud someone is to break it and regardless of how much a person thinks the law shouldn’t apply to them.  I can only imagine hearing someone tell a judge:

As the Supreme Court acknowledged in the 1992 decision of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, its power rests solely upon the legitimacy of its decisions in the eyes of the people. By deciding to prohibit the use of marijuana, the Supreme Court thereby undermined its legitimacy. The Court will significantly decrease its credibility and impair the role it has assumed for itself as a moral authority. It will be acting beyond its proper constitutional role and contrary to the Natural Moral Law which transcends religions, culture, and time.

I’m sure the judge, realizing the importance of remaining stately in their position (and even if that particular judge didn’t agree with the laws against the use of marijuana), would not say the exact words running through their head, which would probably be something along the lines of “Listen here you arrogant little shit; you don’t get to decide what laws you follow and what laws you don’t.  If people got to do whatever they wanted regardless of what the law says there would be no point to even having laws.  If you don’t want to follow the law, you can get fined or go to jail just like every other lawbreaker.”  And that is exactly what any judge hearing a case for discrimination against any one of these people or groups will think of their defiance should the SCOTUS finally allow equality in marriage into the United States.

  • invivoMark

    It’s a line I won’t cross, either! If the Supreme Court redefines marriage, I will refuse to get gay married! I will not get gay married so hard, the Supreme Court will be amazed at my bold civil disobedience! That’ll teach them a lesson!

    • islandbrewer

      I am preemptively defying gay marriage, as I’m typing this!

    • threenorns

      i live in canada and i have staunchly refused to get gay married for years. in fact, i defied gay marriage so hard, i went and had another baby and i’m getting NOT-gay married again! suck on that, SCOTUS!

      furthermore, i can only stand in awe of my brothers and sisters in defiance who have stood their ground and refused to get not-gay-married here in canada. rock on!

  • Jacob

    Someone’s gonna have to explain how the so-called Natural Moral Law™ transcends time.

    • JTEberhard

      “Natural Moral Law” is code for “Shit our religion says to do”.

    • watcher_b

      See there is this “Natural Law” that everyone agrees on. See it is not a religion thing! How can you know if you are following the “Natural Law”, you ask? Well, just take a look at the bible! But don’t come to your own conclusions, these guys who signed this letter will let you know if you are interpreting the bible wrong and thus going against the “Natural Law”.

      • AntieQ

        Good thing they’re around to tell us if we interpret it wrong, because the bible nowhere says that marriage is between one man and one woman! Who’s redefining marriage, now? lol

  • cripdyke

    I believe in civil disobedience. I believe that what makes it powerful is the willingness to take the legal consequences for your behavior. If it is truly an unjust law, then it is in the actual administration of the consequences of the law that the injustice will be repealed. If there’s a law against building churches with crosses in them, you don’t build one and then go to court and say, “You can’t punish me, this is what I believe,” and expect to be treated with the respect due a Malcom X or Dr King.

    To get that, you build your law-breaking church and go to court and insist that they give you the harshest punishment the law allows, as you are unrepentant (for this anyway).

    “I won’t comply,” without being combined with, “and I welcome the legal system’s actions against me so that people can see the injustice of the law,” isn’t noble defiance. It’s privileged entitlement.

    Here, of course, they will likely suffer no consequences at all: the law allows 2 men or 2 women to get married? You don’t like that? Don’t marry someone of your own gender! Your consequence is that you get to keep on doing exactly what you always did.

    And that takes away even the semblance of bravery. You’ll defy my threat to do nothing to you? Oh. My. How noble. How brave. How self-sacrificing.

    • JTEberhard

      Very well put. /salute /upvote

  • Ace_of_Sevens

    You’d think they were talking about the fugitive slave act. Unless we are talking about county clerks here, I have no idea what they are refusing to comply with.

  • watcher_b

    While there are many things we can endure, redefining marriage is so fundamental to the natural order and the true common good that this is the line we must draw and one we cannot and will not cross.

    Greed? No that is fine. Divorce? whatever we’ll try to be more encouraging. The poor? Look, if they would just get a job they could eat. Child molestation? Spousal abuse? Murdering homosexuals in Africa? I’m not even talking about past transgressions, just contemporary ones.

    NO! Redefining Marriage is the line that must not be crossed! Seriously, listen to some of these talk radio guys. Family and Marriage has become the religion to them. It is disturbing. I love my wife and my kid, but Geez! My whole identity does not begin and end with them!

  • carrie

    My Aunt has a partener that she has been with for a very long time. When I got married almost 10 years ago I asked her to be in the family wedding photos and she refused because she didn’t think of herself to be family. I was really sad because I think of her as an Aunt. Here it is 10 years later and they are still together. Every time I look at my pictures I think of how she is not in them. I wish they could be married and she could be family on paper and not just because we accept her.

  • Zugswang

    I guess the only way for social conservatives to protest gay marriage is with a good, old-fashioned ideological circle jerk.

  • Kodie

    None of this makes any sense at all. How does the Supreme Court undermine its own legitimacy? Marriage is not a natural law. Biological procreation is something of a natural law. Surrogacy is not a natural law. Sperm donorship is not a natural law. IVF is not a natural law. Adoption is not a natural law. If straight people can adopt or acquire (?) children in an unnatural way (by which I mean other than fucking-then-birthing with no intervention of a 3rd party’s sperm, egg, or medical specialty), then gay people may marry one another. The Constitution is not a natural law – it is the law of the land. If you’re not gay, don’t seek to marry someone of the same sex as yourself. If straight people who cannot or do not want to procreate can get married, there is nothing to marriage which requires the creation of children. Marriage has nothing to do with the kind of fucking that may result in a pregnancy. Abortion is legal. Fucking is legal. Fucking and not getting married is legal. Fucking and not getting married, resulting in a pregnancy and still not getting married or even love each other, and having a baby is legal. Fucking and not getting married and resulting in a pregnancy while one of them is still married to someone else does not magically terminate the pregnancy nor legitimize the relationship. Fucking and not getting married and resulting in pregnancy and terminating the pregnancy is not illegal. Fucking and not getting married and resulting in pregnancy and then getting married is not illegal. Fucking and not getting married and resulting in pregnancy and having an abortion and then getting married is not illegal. Fucking and not getting married and resulting in pregnancy and then getting married and then having a baby and later getting divorced is not illegal. Not fucking and then getting married and then fucking and then having children and then later having an abortion is not illegal. Fucking a lot of different people and getting pregnant by one of them but you don’t know which one is not illegal. Using birth control so you can fuck as few or many other people as you like without resulting in pregnancy is not illegal. Being married and unfaithful is not illegal. Being married and getting divorced is not illegal. Being married and having children and getting divorced is not illegal. Being married for 50 years and having grown children, then getting divorced is not illegal. Being married, having grown children, getting divorced, and then fucking your ex is not illegal. Being married, having an affair, becoming pregnant from your affair, and never telling your husband, as far as I can tell is still not illegal. Being married and having an adulterous affair resulting in a second family and keeping it a secret from your wife is not illegal.

    Some of these may be unethical or grounds for a civil suit, but the law does not punish any of these acts criminally.

    Rape is illegal. Rape is often defended using the “nature” of men to
    do what they will, given a vulnerable target. Rape is difficult to
    prosecute due to a tendency to blame the victim and excuse the
    perpetrator, making rape seem legal, or at least only risky, and the law
    ambiguously applied and understood poorly.

    Marrying someone
    while you’re already married is illegal. I don’t know what to say about
    polyamory. As it’s not illegal to have and keep a mistress and second
    set of offspring, for some reason this breaks some legal trust with the
    spouse if a marriage license is sought. Legally, a father is responsible
    for all his offspring to the age of majority, but only one wife at a
    time. In my world, this is only for people who don’t know the other
    exists, and is unethical. In some other concepts, people know about each
    other and are totally cool, except the law won’t let them commit
    legally.

    A lot of other scenarios I haven’t described may be unethical, but that does not make them illegal or unnatural.

    TL;DR:
    Marriage is a cultural construct outside of nature and time. I am just bullshitting that. Marriage is a cultural construct, and religion has even less natural definitions of what marriage is or “should” be. Marriage exists outside of and beside sexual relationships and parenthood. Sexual relationships and parenthood seem to be within the bounds of “natural law,” if there is such a thing. Disagreeable-to-Christian-ideals marriages are legal; parenthood requires no marriage, and sexual relation requires no outcome of parenthood. Legal marriage requires no love, nor desire to or ability to have children. Legal marriage requires no decency or respect toward one another, neither does it require proximity, nor does it require permanence. What are these fuckheads talking about?

    • threenorns

      i am so totally yoinking this one for my fb wall!

  • FRE000

    Didn’t many people refuse to comply with laws prohibiting racial segregation? I see history repeating itself.

  • atheisticallyyours

    I am still waiting for the U.S. District Court of Northern CA to ISSUE ME THE SPOUSE that it said I had a RIGHT to, in its opinion that acknowledged marriage is a RIGHT! Where can I pick her up? The courthouse? The DMV? The airport? I want my spouse dammit! I need the tax deduction! ;)

  • http://bearlyatheist.wordpress.com/ Bear Millotts

    Hmmmm…I think I see the signers’ brilliant plan:

    1) sign letter saying they will defy any law that allows gay people to marry,
    2) each signer gets a job at their local county clerk office,
    3) they each refuse to give out marriage licenses to gay couples,
    4) they get sued for that refusal,
    5) in a combined court case, they win, in front of the whole country, with a defense that is so brilliant, so innovative, that it completely overturns gay marriage “because the bible is true” and results in show trials in which scientists who mocked god are forced to recant, and
    6) America re-embraces god, heralding the return of Jesus and the end times.

  • Tim Pace

    Morals in the bible were litigated by people 100 times greater then these 9 POS. Thr word morals and supreme court judges don’t belong in the same paragraph

    • Zinc Avenger

      I absolutely agree with your second sentence. The Supreme Court should rule on matters of law and the Constitution, not morality or the Bible. Good thing that’s what they did in this case then. You’re free to think and say same sex marriage is immoral*, but it is not illegal.

      Gambling, drinking, taking your god’s name in vain, worshiping other gods, working on a Sunday, cursing your parents, making idols, coveting your neighbor’s fine ass… So many things you might say are immoral are perfectly legal.

      *: And I’m free to think and say you are a bigoted asshole. See how that works?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X