Dobson, Colson & Co Whine About Proposition 8 Stepping On Religious Liberty. Say WHAT?

[media id=17757] James Dobson got together with his pals Chuck-the-felon Colson, lawyer Robert George and theology professor Timothy George to gnas

up

James Dobson got together with his pals Chuck-the-felon Colson, lawyer Robert George and theology professor Timothy George to gnash over Judge Walker's ruling on Proposition 8.

When they were all done with their collective hand-wringing, they got down to the business of rallying the troops. Colson stepped up with the first round, claiming that this was really an opportunity because the Supreme Court will not defy the general will of the people.

COLSON: But let me say this. The gay rights movement has thus far avoided the federal courts and I think they've done so for a reason. And I think this could turn around and be a great opportunity for us because every one of the cases starting with Roe vs. Wade and the prayer in school decisions before that, there was a popular consensus behind the change that the Supreme Court made. This is the first one to come along since 1997 where there isn't a moral consensus in support of it. and...the Supreme Court has not ever handed down a decision which flew into the face and teeth of a strong moral consensus against it. They didn't do it in 1997 and this is where our opportunity comes from.

Having laid the ground work (and mangling all logical thought in the process), he then reveals the corner of a strategy:

I don't think if we build a real groundswell of opinion now over the next several months that the Supreme Court will rule in supporting what happened in California two days ago. I don't believe it. I believe that this is an opportunity we have to build a groundswell of support that will cause the Supreme Court not to legalize gay marriage.

As Right Wing Watch noted, it appears that the strategy is going to be to simply stomp their feet and say NO! We won't tolerate it.

They spent a great deal of time chewing on this, with Dobson weighing in with his deep, deep concerns that people won't rise up. But of course, they came up with a plan for that, based on their database of signators to the Manhattan Declaration -- a somewhat creepy document declaring support for the sanctity of life, marriage, and religious liberty.

Robert George weighs in on the strategy thus:

Chuck Colson's right! It might very well depend on whether we make clear to the justices that the redefinition of marriage, uh, the destruction of the historic understanding of marriage as the union of one man and woman simply will not be accepted by us, we the people, as legitimate.

Did you hear THAT, people? It simply. will. not. be. accepted. by us. The people.

Yeah, right.

Now the interesting thing here is that in the days when Loving vs. Virginia was moving through the courts, more people viewed interracial marriage as an abomination than the number who view gay marriage in that light.

Via The Moderate Voice:

The take away message is clear: in 1968 Gallup found that 73% “disapproved” of interracial marriage with 20% “approving.” By contrast 30% say they support gay marriage and 28% civil unions.

And yet, the court ruled very clearly against popular opinion, because the issues at stake here are not moral issues. They are constitutional issues that hit right at the heart of the core principles of our country. We did not fight a bloody Civil War to come out on the other side of it agreeing to discriminate against another group in our society and more fundamentally, strip away their basic rights.

There are some actual thinking Christians in this country who view the crusade against gays and gay marriage as more of an abomination than anything we could dream up. Those pastors and thinkers have chosen NOT to sign the Manhattan Declaration. But never fear, this little cabal has already got a way to get them fired up too.

GEORGE: Christians have to recognize that the logic of Judge Walker's opinion not only undermines the institution of marriage but it also jeopardizes our religious liberty. Under the logic of the Walker opinion in this case, the fact that someone holds a view not he basis of his religious faith essentially disqualifies that view as a basis for public policy. So your vote as an American is in part shaped by your faith, perhaps your faith in the equality of all human beings and civil rights and so forth, under Judge Walker's reasoning, that vote is illegitimate and policy put into place as a result of that vote can be invalidated.

Oh noes! Your vote doesn't count! Quick, call out the teabag police, we can't have THAT.

Toward the end, there was one truth spoken by Timothy George:

This ruling gets to the heart of who we are as human beings. What kind of lives we want to have, what kind of society we want to have.

That's right, it does. It forces each and every one of us to ask ourselves whether we're comfortable with the idea of enjoying our rights to choose whom we wish to marry and building a life with them while not only excluding an entire class of citizens, but actually stripping them of their rights.

So the strategy goes this way: Stoke up a lot of fear about lost liberties in an effort to strip liberties away from others in our country. Allrighty then. Sounds like injustice to me, not justice, and certainly not "liberty for all."

About karoli

karoli's picture
Card-carrying member of we, the people.

Comments

We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Please refer to our Terms of Service for information on our posting policy.