One theme that I've consistently heard from the religious right is that if when the Supreme Court rules for marriage equality, they will resist it like Abraham Lincoln resisted Dred Scott. This comparison is to make the point that what they consider to be unjust decisions will not be followed. It's not to make the point that marriage equality is as bad as slavery.
Well, it wasn't, until now.
Here's NOM's latest commentary on this:
Imagine the barbaric nature of the logic used and the opinion adopted: a person, a certain type of person, is a piece of property who can be owned, traded, bought and sold. Whether man or woman, no matter where born this type of person could not be considered a citizen and an act of Congress adopted to protect them was invalid.
The type of person involved was African American, whether free or slave, and the decision is the infamous Dred Scott v. Sanford decision. We mark the 158th anniversary of this unimaginable decision by the US Supreme Court this month.
The Dred Scott decision was wrong on so many levels that it’s difficult to cover them all in this email. But the most important thing to realize about the decision is that it ignored both natural law and the principles of the American founding to impose a political ideology on the country.
Does that ring a bell for you with anything in the news today?
Wow, NOM. First of all, I cannot tell you how insulting I find your claim that slavery is wrong not, first of all, because it reduces people to property, discriminates against an entire group of people for no other reason that the colour of their skin, and inflicts unimaginable, unquantifiable pain and suffering on them, but instead, it is wrong because it ignores what you consider to be natural law, whatever the hell that means. You are, whether you intended it or not, suggesting that it is more important to make sure your religious beliefs are put in law than it is to end slavery.
Now, let there be no more confusion as to if they really think marriage equality is as bad as slavery:
The US Supreme Court can no more redefine marriage than it could decide that some people are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights and others are not.
And let there also be no more confusion that their claims to support the rule of law is a crock of sh*t. In defending the Alabama Supreme Court's unprecedented deviance from basic legal procedures (accepting a case where there is no standing, ruling on a question not before them), they've repeatedly invoked Baker v. Nelson.
From February 12:
It's important to remember that in 1972, the Supreme Court was asked to consider whether same-sex marriage was guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, in Baker v Nelson, and they unanimously dismissed the case for lack of a substantial federal question.
From
March 4:
Brown noted that the US Supreme Court has never ruled against traditional marriage laws and that binding Supreme Court precedence exists (Baker v Nelson) specifically upholding state laws defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
From
March 5:
As we have been saying for months, lower federal judges do NOT have the authority to order a state to redefine marriage. Those judges are bound by binding US Supreme Court precedent which in Baker v Nelson held that state laws defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman do not violate the US Constitution.
From
March 10:
As we have been saying for months, lower federal judges do NOT have the authority to order a state to redefine marriage. Those judges are bound by binding US Supreme Court precedent which in Baker v Nelson held that state laws defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman do not violate the US Constitution.
(I didn't accidentally copy the same quote twice. They made it twice.)
This all seems even more absurd when you consider that a) precedent can no longer be binding if "subsequent doctrinal developments" undermine it, and b) the Supreme Court has denied stays to Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, South Carolina, Florida and Alabama, most by votes of 7-2. Justice Thomas himself admitted, in a dissent from denying a stay in Alabama that the court will rule for marriage equality. So how then, NOM, can you claim that this is still binding?
Now, back to their "rule of law" hypocrisy. Up until now, their demands have been for federal courts below the Supreme Court to be disregarded. Now they want the Supreme Court to be disregarded as well:
If the court does issue a Dred Scott decision on marriage, we will resist it, refusing to comply, because it will be illegitimate.
I've also noticed their hypocrisy on comparing African-American and LGBT civil rights movements. They can't stand it when that comparison is made. From
February 11:
We're proud of the African American leaders like Rev. Bill Owens who have decried any attempt to equate gay ‘marriage' with civil rights.
But they're making it. From the same blog post:
I can't promise you that we will have a historic speech like Dr. King's "I have a dream" speech, nor can I promise you 250,000 people will come to Washington, but I can promise you this: we will march for a true and just cause, for the civil right of Americans to enjoy the benefits of natural marriage, the union of one man and one woman, the foundation of society and the cradle of civilization.
[...]
Indeed, it is us who support traditional marriage who are fighting for the civil rights of children to have a mother and a father who are married.
Fighting against LGBT equality is the same as fight for black equality, according to them, even if that fight for black equality was a fight against slavery. They truly think fighting against slavery is the same as fighting against LGBT equality.
This is one of the most irrational, overblown, unbelievable claims I've ever encountered from them as to what marriage equality will mean. But am I surprised? No.
I gave that up a long time ago.