You know, this is one thing:
And that's fine. You have every right to remain a bigot. No matter how the Supremes rule on same-sex marriage, you, as ministers, have every right to say "we will not perform gay weddings in our churches." And you have every right to say "we will continue to be shitty to gay couples whether their marriages are legal or not."You are a church, you are entitled to your beliefs, even if those beliefs make you an asshole.
Southern Baptists declare ‘spiritual warfare’ on Supreme Court with resolution denying marriage authority“Southern Baptists recognize that no governing institution has the authority to countermand God’s definition of marriage,” the statement continued. “No matter how the Supreme Court rules, the Southern Baptist Convention reaffirms its unwavering commitment to its doctrinal and public beliefs concerning marriage.”
This, on the other hand. . .
Santorum: Supreme Court Doesn’t Get Final Say on Gay Marriage"I think it's important to understand that the Supreme Court doesn't have the final word," Santorum told viewers.
Um. . . Yeah, they kinda do.
Santorum is among the signers of the anti-gay marriage pledge being circulated by a group associated with the website DefendMarriage.Org. The group recently placed a full-page ad in The Washington Post with an open letter to the Supreme Court promising civil disobedience if the court struck down bans on gay marriage.See, that's maybe not a big deal if you're just some dick in Pennsylvania who wants to sit on his front porch shaking his fist at the march of time and cursing modernity, but Santorum is running for President. Of America!
“We will not honor any decision by the Supreme Court which will force us to violate a clear biblical understanding of marriage as solely the union of one man and one woman,” the letter said.
You can't run for President on a platform of "I will ignore the Constitution and defy the Supreme Court." And yes, I know, Santorum will never be President and he probably isn't even all that serious about running. He's running for the same reason most of the Republican candidates are, to raise his media profile, increase his speaking fees, maybe sell a few books, but still. He's a declared candidate for POTUS and no one is calling him out on this.
And it's not just him.
[Mike Huckabee] The former Arkansas governor also signed the DefendMarriage.Org civil disobedience pledge, and suggested that if elected president, he would ignore a Supreme Court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage.Jeezus Christ! This loon wants to re-litigate Marbury v. Madison?
“Presidents have understood that the Supreme Court cannot make a law, they cannot make it, the legislature has to make it, the executive branch has to sign it and enforce it,” Huckabee told Fox News’ Chris Wallace. “And the notion that the Supreme Court comes up with the ruling and that automatically subjects the two other branches to following it defies everything there is about the three equal branches of government.”
The doctrine of judicial review, the principle of the Supreme Court's supremacy in deciding what is and is not Constitutional has served us well for about 2 centuries. And this dickbag wants to scrap that because gay guys getting married makes him feel all angried up?
And Huckabee could theoretically win the Republican nomination (or could have before he decided to embrace an admitted child molester). There is actually an ever-so-slight chance that Hllary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and the other guy (O'Malley?) could all get caught in bed together with a Russian hooker and a bag of crack, and then Huckabee could maybe end up in the Oval Office, taking it upon himself to overrule the Supreme Court.
Which is pretty much what they always accuse Obama of, ruling by executive fiat.
Then there's an actual sitting Senator and his insanely unconstitutional proposal:
In addition to proposing the more temperate course of a new constitutional amendment to limit marriage to straight couples, [Ted} Cruz introduced a bill in the Senate that would bar federal courts from weighing in on marriage until that amendment was passed, Bloomberg reported in April.
You can't do that! You can't make a law that says the courts can't rule on something. That's not how it works!
Why do all these people who claim to love the Constitution so much never seem to understand it?
Maybe Dr Carson can explain basic high-school Civics to the Senator:
Ben Carson has expressed doubt that a Supreme Court decision favoring same-sex marriage would need to be enforced.
"First of all, we have to understand how the Constitution works. The president is required to carry out the laws of the land, the laws of the land come from the legislative branch," Carson said in May. "So if the legislative branch creates a law or changes a law, the executive branch has a responsibly to carry it out. It doesn’t say they have the responsibility to carry out a judicial law. And that's something we need to talk about."
Like Cruz, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) has also introduced legislation prohibiting courts -- including the Supreme Court -- from considering the question of same-sex marriage, by taking on Article III of the Constitution.
"We could pass this bill before the Supreme Court could even hear the oral arguments, let alone bring a decision down in June," King said when introducing the bill in early April. "That would stop it right then, there would be no decision coming out of the Supreme Court. This is a brake, and whether we can get the brake on or not between now and June, that we don't know."
Does this moron actually think he can change the Constitution by passing a law? Oh, wait. It's Steve King. Yeah, he probably does think that.
And he's a Congressman!
At least Tom DeLay is no longer in office. Or relevant at all. But still. . .
In addition to signing the civil disobedience pledge, the former GOP House majority leader has advocated for states to ignore a Supreme Court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage.
"A ruling by the Supreme Court is nothing but an opinion if the legislative branch and the executive branch do not enforce it," DeLay said on Newsmax TV’s The Steve Malzberg Show. "Not only that, if the states would just invoke the 10th Amendment and assert their sovereignty, they can defy a ruling by the Supreme Court. It's in the Constitution. We can tell the court what cases they can hear."
No. It. ISN'T! It is not "in the Constitution." Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the states get to decide which cases the courts can hear. Just like the courts don'r get to choose which legislation you get to propose, or the President doesn't get to decide that you are a fucking lunatic and have you committed.