The dean of Liberty University’s School of Law, Mathew Staver, apparently fell over the edge of the insanity cliff that so many conservatives seem to be walking along recently. In an interview with Janet Parshall of Moody Radio, he stated that:
Basically marriage will be completely destroyed, families will be destroyed, children will be hurt by this, and freedom of speech, freedom of religion, including in the pulpit itself, will absolutely be bulldozed over. This would open a floodgate of unimaginable proportions. That’s why with those kinds of consequences, to have five of the nine justices ultimately have this kind of power in their hands, that’s not how this court and this country was established.
Well, that’s good to know, I suppose. I was under the apparently erroneous impression that allowing homosexuals to be married would simply…allow homosexuals to be married. You know, equality and all that — allowing those attracted to the same sex to have their love and bond legally recognized.
Here’s the audio/video, with transcript included:
Here’s the rest of the transcript (continued from above), with commentary:
STAVER: …to have five individuals be able to have that kind of catastrophic, social re-engineering power in their hands, uh, that’s not something that was envisioned by the founders.
Actually, the power of the Supreme Court was Constitutionally determined, so they are well within their bounds as envisioned by the founders. At least, with regard to the written record, they are. I guess off in conservative dreamland you can attribute whatever you’d like to them.
PARSHALL: Yeah, absolutely right. Absolutely right. But I also think we need to be preparing our hearts as well, Mat, that if, in fact, the Supreme Court decides to trample underfoot the truth of God’s word, we’re gonna as a church are gonna have to decide what we’re going to do. [sic]
I mean, Mat, you know, again I’m going to appeal to your pastor’s heart, that means that every single pastor who is called to hold out the word of life is gonna have to decide whether or not he’s going to sidestep certain passages for fear of some sort of response from the government.
Yeah, because if gay marriage is legal, suddenly opposing political opinions — or opposing religious opinions — are going to be made illegal, and the government is going to target you for it. Last time I checked, there were plenty of people against marriage of any kind, but I haven’t seen helicopters over their houses yet.
STAVER: Yeah, I mean this is the thing that revolutions literally are made of. I mean, this would be more devastating to our freedom, to our religious freedom, to the rights of pastors and their duty to be able to speak to Christians around the country, than anything that the revolutionaries during the American Revolution even dreamed of facing.
First of all, the American Revolution wasn’t about religious freedom exactly, so that reference doesn’t really make sense. Also, they seem to be confused about what “equality” means, and the fact that someone else being equal to you doesn’t make you inferior. Legalization of marriage for same-sex couples isn’t going to say a single thing about religious freedom or freedom of speech. I know it’s worn out, but…don’t like gay marriage? Well, then don’t get gay married. End of story.
STAVER (cont.): This would be the thing that revolutions are made of. This could split the country right in two. This could cause another civil war. And I’m not talking about just people protesting in the streets, this could be that level because what would ultimately happen is, a direct collision would immediately happen with pastors, with churches, with Christians, with Christian ministries, with other businesses, it would be, uh, um an avalanche that would go across the country.
For those Christians that are reading this and aren’t opposed to gay marriage, you should probably speak up. They don’t seem to realize you exist. Also, I’d like to point out that he referred to churches as businesses. At least he’s honest in that respect.
PARSHALL: There is no ambiguity as to what the definition of marriage is. Here are nine people in black robes who are basically going to judge, and I’m going to put this in the vernacular of the common man, these are nine people who are basically gonna say: “God didn’t say that and here’s our ruling.”
But you’ve got judges who are basically going to decide for us at the high level, potentially, what, how marriage should be defined. That’s amazing! Who would have thought we’d ever find ourselves in that place?
It’s somewhat doubtful that the justices are going to say anything at all about what God has to say in the manner. After all, they’re ruling on law in the United States — not the Bible. We’re also a secular nation, so a ruling based on the Bible would be asinine.
STAVER: It’s stunning and that’s why I am very concerned that this has made its way to the United States Supreme Court, because only five of those nine can make a decision and so five people, potentially, in the United States, only five out of all the millions hundred millions [sic] that we have, have in their hand this opportunity to literally wreck marriage, to destroy the very foundation of our family and the biblical definition of marriage.
The consequences are staggering. This could be the Roe versus Wade of marriage and family. And if we ultimately say as a court, and if the country follows it, that marriage is between two people of the same sex and it’s not how common sense, history and the Bible ultimately defines it, uh, that has catastrophic consequences in many ways I mean. That is, um, staggering and it is actually something that we ought to be in significant prayer about because this could be the unraveling of the United States.
If you get the feeling you’re drowning in a giant pool of stupidity, I empathize. It’s funny that they’re so concerned about five justices making the decision — I doubt they complained when DOMA was passed by a not much larger group of people (statistically).
I hope this is the Roe v. Wade of marriage and family. Roe v. Wade stands out as a bright point in a long battle for women’s rights, and if this stands out as the same for same-sex couples, we have cause for celebration. I’d like to remind them that history also said that mixing races wasn’t legal…and to remember that we make history, we don’t follow it.