Wow -- as "Decision Day" draws closer (and I'm hoping the decision comes down Friday -- our Pride Parade is this coming Sunday), the usual suspects are in danger of losing it. No -- not in danger: they've lost it.
From Pastor/Governor Mike Huckabee, who still hasn't learned the difference, but who presumes to speak for all Christians:
I have to admit, I'm sort of puzzled as to what form this "civil disobedience" is going to take. Are they going to refuse to marry someone of the same sex? And on the historical side, yes, Christians have often stood against injustice. I find it puzzling that they would even consider standing against justice finally being served.
Rick Scarborough, an evangelical preacher from Texas, is calling for extreme measures:
Most of the commentators who have covered this story, like the writer here, assume he's threatening to self-immolate, but if you look at it, of course that's not the case: he's a fairly sucessful grifter, and he's not about to give that up. What he's actually doing is calling on others to burn themselves.
I guess that has more impact than stamping your feet and holding your breath.
Speaking of Texas (and how can we not, in this context?), some of the state legislators are almost foaming at the mouth.
That's just the beginning. I really can't do this one justice -- read the whole article for a catalogue of things they've never heard of in Texas, including separation of church and state and the inviolability of fundamental rights.
And this is just what I've run across so far. There may be additions as I continue my morning surfing.
Footnote: This is all happening because just about everyone is assuming that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of marriage equality. I'm generally reluctant to try to predict the Court (especially this one: who could have foreseen Citizens United or Hobby Lobby based on accepted legal principles?). Here's Rachel Maddow with a caution, and some reassurance from Dahlia Lithwick (and if you don't know who she is, you should: start with "Supreme Court reporter extraordinaire"). The relevant portion begins at about the 34:30 minute mark:
Update: Here's the cherry on top:
I like that "mums and dads" part. How folksy.
As for the "redefining marriage" part -- well, none of this has anything to do with "redefining" marriage, and frankly, when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, who would you rely on -- Rick Scarborough, or the Supreme Court?
From Pastor/Governor Mike Huckabee, who still hasn't learned the difference, but who presumes to speak for all Christians:
"For many of us, civil disobedience, when we believe the civil government has acted outside of nature and nature’s God, outside of the bounds of the law, outside of the bounds of the Constitution," Huckabee told Fox News religion reporter Todd Starnes, adding that Christians believe civil disobedience is "the right and moral thing to do."
I have to admit, I'm sort of puzzled as to what form this "civil disobedience" is going to take. Are they going to refuse to marry someone of the same sex? And on the historical side, yes, Christians have often stood against injustice. I find it puzzling that they would even consider standing against justice finally being served.
Rick Scarborough, an evangelical preacher from Texas, is calling for extreme measures:
"We are not going to bow. We are not going to bend, and if necessary we will burn," Scarborough said — suggesting that he'd self-immolate in protest of a forthcoming marriage equality ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Most of the commentators who have covered this story, like the writer here, assume he's threatening to self-immolate, but if you look at it, of course that's not the case: he's a fairly sucessful grifter, and he's not about to give that up. What he's actually doing is calling on others to burn themselves.
I guess that has more impact than stamping your feet and holding your breath.
Speaking of Texas (and how can we not, in this context?), some of the state legislators are almost foaming at the mouth.
“It’ll be a sad day for American values,” the Pampa Republican said. “It’s a sad day when the court decides to meddle into religious affairs and destroy marriage, destroy the foundation of family life.”
Chisum, who represented House District 88 from 1989 until 2013, has plenty of company.
That's just the beginning. I really can't do this one justice -- read the whole article for a catalogue of things they've never heard of in Texas, including separation of church and state and the inviolability of fundamental rights.
And this is just what I've run across so far. There may be additions as I continue my morning surfing.
Footnote: This is all happening because just about everyone is assuming that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of marriage equality. I'm generally reluctant to try to predict the Court (especially this one: who could have foreseen Citizens United or Hobby Lobby based on accepted legal principles?). Here's Rachel Maddow with a caution, and some reassurance from Dahlia Lithwick (and if you don't know who she is, you should: start with "Supreme Court reporter extraordinaire"). The relevant portion begins at about the 34:30 minute mark:
Update: Here's the cherry on top:
Two of the [Republican] field, Huckabee and Santorum, have signed an anti-gay pledge authored by Texas pastor Rick Scarborough – who has threatened to set himself on fire if gay couples are allowed to marry.
The pledge states: “Conferring a moral and legal equivalency to any relationship other than marriage between a man and a woman, by legislative or judicial fiat, sends the message that children do not need a mother and a father.
“As a policy matter, such unions convey the message that mums and dads are completely irrelevant to the well-being of children.
“Such a policy statement is unconscionable and destructive. Authorizing the legal equivalency of marriage to same-sex couples undermines the fundamental rights of children and threatens their security, stability, and future.”
It continues: “A decision purporting to redefine marriage flies in the face of the Constitution and is contrary to the natural created order.
I like that "mums and dads" part. How folksy.
As for the "redefining marriage" part -- well, none of this has anything to do with "redefining" marriage, and frankly, when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, who would you rely on -- Rick Scarborough, or the Supreme Court?
No comments:
Post a Comment