Staver’s Doubletalk on Same-Sex and Interracial Marriage

Staver’s Doubletalk on Same-Sex and Interracial Marriage May 4, 2015

Mat Staver, the dumbest lawyer in America not named Larry Klayman, went on the Crosstalk radio show last week and tried to make a distinction between same-sex marriage and interracial marriage. He failed. Badly. The ban on same-sex marriage, you see, is “rooted in history” while the ban on miscegenation was, somehow, not.

He also addressed claims that the arguments in favor of the same-sex marriage bans are similar to the ones made defending bans on interracial marriage, which were also said to be based on moral, biblical teachings and not discriminatory in nature. Staver dubiously suggested that while homosexuality “has always been, up until recently been, described through millennia of human history as a crime against nature,” racial bias is not rooted in history.

“There is nothing historically or throughout our long history of Judeo-Christianity that says that someone who’s got dark skin can’t marry someone who’s got white skin or lighter color skin. That’s never been rooted in our history, that’s never been rooted in natural law, that’s never been rooted in millennia of human history,” Staver said. “Marriage is objectively, to use a philosophical term, ontologically, the union of a man and a woman. If you can’t get that right, good grief, how can you be a judge on any court?”

Oi vey. Interracial marriage was banned for centuries in this country, which means it was, by definition, rooted in history. And the arguments in favor of that ban were entirely based on so-called natural law (which really just means “whatever Christians believe at any given moment”). It was right there in the district court ruling in Loving v Virginia. It was there in the arguments in favor of such bans going back to the days when the states were still British colonies.

Oh, and anti-gay bigots are just like Rosa Parks:

On Tuesday’s edition of “Crosstalk,” Liberty Counsel’s Mat Staver urged the owners of an Oregon bakery who were fined for violating the state’s non-discrimination law when they denied service to a gay customer to refuse to pay the fine in an act of civil disobedience against an “unjust law.”

“If the government wants to come in and put Rosa Parks on the back of the bus, Rosa Parks shouldn’t move to the back of the bus,” Staver said. “If they are wanting to take Christians and put you on the back of the bus because of your faith, you shouldn’t voluntarily walk to the back of the bus.”

All of these comparisons to Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King are just so perverse. King and Parks were fighting against the right to legally discriminate. Staver is fighting for

Browse Our Archives