Matt Staver: Obergefell didn’t count, and it’s time for “civil resistance” to fight it.

Matt Staver: Obergefell didn’t count, and it’s time for “civil resistance” to fight it. August 23, 2016

Matt Staver gave a talk in Pennsylvania in April, the video for which has come to light now, in which he said that Obergefell didn’t count.  Why?  Because his religion says otherwise.

Waaah!
Matt Staver

Staver takes it a step further, suggesting civil unrest is necessary to get their way:

“We are coming to a place, ladies and gentlemen, where we have to make a decision,” said Staver, who represented Kentucky clerk Kim Davis in her war against the Supreme Court’s marriage quality ruling. “Where we have to make a decision like Dietrich Bonhoeffer made a decision, like Martin Niemoller made a decision. We are coming to the position where we are in the same place that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had to make a decision, where the founders of this country had to make a decision that we will either obey God or we will obey man. And when those two directly, inherently, irrevocably collide with one another. We are in a position like Daniel in the lions’ den, like the three Hebrews that would not bow down, like Esther, who put her life on the line and engaged in civil resistance against the most powerful king on the planet. We are coming to that moment in time.”

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell, he said, was “a lawless opinion.”

“When are we going to stop playing charades and pretend that whatever those five people say, whoever they might be, whatever they say, no matter how devoid of the Constitution it may be, that it becomes the law of the land?” he asked. “It doesn’t! If that’s your belief system, if you have gotten so brainwashed to think that whatever those five people in Washington, D.C., say, we now have to march to it like toy soldiers because if they say so, irrespective of the fact that they have no authority under the Constitution to do it, then you would support Dred Scott, you would support Buck v. Bell, because those decisions came down from the United States Supreme Court as well.”

This is, of course, an idiotic opinion.  If people can choose which rulings by which to abide, what’s the point of even having a Supreme Court in the first place?  Have they always gotten the call right?  No.  Is it always the law of the land regardless?  Yup.  Don’t like it?  There are avenues prescribed within the Constitution to fight it and try to change it.  But ignoring it and saying it doesn’t count just because you don’t like it ain’t one of ’em.

Also, with the Civil Rights movement it was obvious what civil resistance looked like: black people sitting in places they weren’t allowed because of the color of their skin.  What will Christian “civil resistance” look like?

Will they get married, as they were always permitted to do?

Will they sit in restaurants in which they were always allowed?

How are Christians prohibited from doing anything on account of Obergefell aside from dictating the love lives of complete strangers, which shouldn’t have been their right in the first place?

Image used without alteration under Creative Commons. Credit to Kyle Flood.


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment