This is one of those stories that makes you wonder just what the eff these people think they are going to do. Liberty Counsel Action chairman Mat Staver and Common Good Alliance chairman Deacon Keith Fornier have sent out a letter saying that, if the US Supreme Court should rule in favor of same-sex marriage, they will defy the ruling.
How they will defy the ruling, I’m not sure. Maybe sit in the corner making faces and sticking out their tongues.
The letter apparently bears the title “We Stand in Solidarity to Defend Marriage and the Family and Society Founded Upon Them.” The letter apparently includes a lot of talk about “natural moral law”, which actually doesn’t exist, but was created by recent Christian scholars to try and separate what is natural from what is unnatural. For most great apes, including humans, what is natural is not to be married, but rather to sit around eating leaves while wearing nothing at all.
Really, have you ever seen an ape dress itself? Okay, maybe Banjo and Gunter from Futurama, but they are cartoon characters.
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.
And, guess what, the majority of the People support same-sex marriage. So, I guess that’s that, huh? Actually, the legitimacy of the Supreme Court rests not in the eyes of the people, but in the Constitution of the United States of America which created the Supreme Court and defines its powers.
The letter also states that “marriage and family have been inscribed by the Divine Architect into the order of creation. Marriage is ontologically between one man and one woman, ordered toward the union of the spouses, open to children and formative of family. Family is the first vital cell of society; the first church, first school, first hospital, first economy, first government and first mediating institution of our social order. The future of a free and healthy society passes through marriage and the family.”
Alas, this was not really so. It was not until well into the history of Christianity that the idea of marriage being between one man and one woman was even thought to be sacred. In fact, it appears that the idea of the sacredness of marriage only came about some seven or eight hundred years ago. Prior to that, marriage was just a contract entered into by two people seeking to shack up. Well, two or more people depending on what culture you live in.
But let us not forget that these guys are not just homophobes, but extremely xenophobic and ethnocentric. They tend to forget that other cultures have marriages too, and that those marriages differ greatly from the kind that we have under Christiandom.
They also claim that “Redefining the very institution of marriage is improper and outside the authority of the State. The Supreme Court has no authority to redefine marriage.” Actually, they do. You see, marriage is not something that is just a religious institution. In fact, most cultures never saw marriage as a sacred bond. Instead, it was a civil bond. Different cultures had different views of marriage as well. For instance, the Celts saw marriage as the contractual bond between two or more people entered into willingly. The Greeks recorded that there were instances of same-sex marriages among the Celts, and the Celtic marriage laws are largely devoid of gender nouns.
The people of the Canary Islands, for instance, allowed marriages between a woman and many men. Islamic cultures allow marriage between a man and up to four women. The Native Americans had marriages that were based on the gender, but not the sex, of the people involved. Ancient Judaism allowed for one man to marry many women. It is just that these people are ethnocentric bigots who don’t want to acknowledge that marriage is not considered sacred by everyone.
Deacon Keith Fournier claimed that “This will bring about an inevitable collision with religious freedom and conscience rights and does not serve the common good of society.” The actuality is that it will only do that if people decide to be bigots against other people.
Their letter wraps up with “[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.”
But the question is, what will they do? They do not say how they will defy the Supreme Court’s ruling. In fact, it appears that they are just going to throw one big-arse temper tantrum and occasionally act out by being bigots and refusing to officiate people’s weddings- which they are not required to do anyway. Maybe they will refuse to bake them wedding cakes or sell them flowers. Sure, in some states they can do that, but that’s about it.
Of course, they could just join with Westboro Baptist Church and start telling five-year-olds that they’re going to Hell and picketing funerals.
It is, though, obvious they don’t have a plan since they don’t outline one in their letter.