The headline should really read: Some religious leaders pledge to resist any pro-LGBT, pro-marriage equality rulings, as they nervously anticipating Supreme Court decisions regarding Prop 8 and DOMA, and so are standing in solidarity to defend marriage and the family and society founded upon them, based on their interpretation of Christianity, and what’s more, have drawn a line they won’t cross, and for at least one of those signing, Tony Perkins of Family Research Council, it might mean a “revolution,” and by the way, here’s a “Are You Willing to Go to Jail?” video as an example of such thinking. You can understand why I didn’t use that as a headline.
As careful observers of the Supreme Court have said for months, the decision regarding California’s Proposition 8 and DOMA are most likely to come in the last week (probably the one coming up) and on the last day. That, along with the high profile progress made toward marriage equality has the Solidarity people basically saying they’ll refuse to abide by any pro-marriage equality rulings.
At Right Wing Watch:
As the nation awaits the Supreme Court’s rulings on two high-profile marriage equality cases, several dozen Religious Right activists have signed on to a “˜Marriage Solidarity Statement’ … vowing to resist any ruling in favor of equality.
And from Christian Newswire:
… a group of Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Christian clergy and leaders released a statement entitled: “˜We Stand in Solidarity to Defend Marriage and the Family and Society Founded Upon Them.’ The … Statement was drafted by Deacon Keith Fournier, Editor of Catholic Online and Chairman of Common Good Alliance, and Mat Staver, Chairman of Liberty Counsel Action. It was vetted among other Christian pastors and leaders and signed onto by leading Christian clergy and leaders … .
As Alvin McEwen summed it all up, at Pam’s House Blend, “Religious right promises to throw a hissy fit if the Supreme Court rules against DOMA, Prop 8.”
You can see the entire statement and all those signing here. Excerpts follow, which should get you ready for the video.
We stand together as Christians in defense of marriage and the family and society founded upon them.
Note the careful linking of marriage to family and all of society. Basically, the rest of the statement makes that point, often by way of predicting the scary things that will happen if the homosexuals get to marry. I am once again amazed at the power of Queerdom, and can’t figure out how we haven’t managed to take over the nation if not the world by now.
I’m going to highlight a few things that seem to encapsulate the argument.
We affirm 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.
That really seems to sum things up, along with the predictable “Natural Moral Law” argument also made, but I think they needed more space to get the “scary stuff that will happen if gays get to marry” warnings in.
This … Natural Moral Law is the ground upon which every great civilization has been built. It is the source of every authentic human and civil rights movement. … It should also inform our positive law or we will become lawless and devolve into anarchy. …
If the Supreme Court becomes the tool by which marriage is redefined … , the precedent established will leave no room for any limitation on what can constitute such a redefined notion of marriage. Conferring a moral and legal equivalency to same-sex couples by legislative or judicial fiat also sends the message that children do not need a mother and a father. …
The effort to redefine marriage threatens the proper mediating role of the Church in society.
Experience and history have shown us that if the government redefines marriage to grant a legal equivalency to same-sex couples, that same government will then enforce such an action with the police power of the State. … Religious freedom is the first freedom in the American experiment for good reason.
Note something here: they point to a “legal” concern, not a religous one. Most likely they don’t make a distinction, but that’s a key point, and you see it again in what follows.
Finally, the Supreme Court has no authority to redefine marriage … .
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. … It will be acting beyond its proper constitutional role and contrary to the Natural Moral Law which transcends religions, culture, and time.
… (M)ake no mistake about our resolve. BOLD 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.
It sounds as if they’ve decided to even more closely embrace the martyr, victim, oppressed, discriminated against roles they’ve assumed since support for marriage equality (and LGBTQ equality in general, but marriage is the “line”) has grown so significantly.
What they mean by “will not cross” that line isn’t clear. One person (not a signer) does seem clear. Coach Dave TV: Are You Willing to Go to Jail?