Today, Mat Staver tells Charlie Butts of American Family Association that judges are destroying public trust in the judiciary because of their rulings in favor of marriage equality. Seriously?
Sometimes it is hard to believe that Mat Staver is a licensed attorney. While Liberty University’s law school is a fourth-tier institution (madrasa would be a better description), it is still remarkable that Staver is its dean. Mr. Staver believes that we live in some alternate reality — an Iranian style theocracy with a different set of mullahs. Apparently the Establishment Clause has a secret preamble that reads “At the discretion of conservative Christians …”
According to AFA’s blog, Staver says:
It’s ridiculous when federal courts overturn the natural order of marriage. … The judiciary is on trial more than marriage. … You can’t put the laws of gravity on trial. Such laws are what they are. Marriage is what it is. It is part of the natural creation, male and female, moms and dads. They form the first foundation of government and provide the best environment in which to raise boys and girls to be men and women.
So the civil laws regulating the eligibility for marriage are as absolute as the law of gravity? Butts (not his porn name) goes on to quote Staver:
“When judges begin to cross the line – and I think they certainly do when they have the audacity to say that you cannot affirm the natural, created order of marriage as between a man and a woman – that ultimately undermines confidence of the people in the judiciary,” he explains.“ When that happens, judges and courts all across the country will lose their power. And, frankly, the time for that to happen has been looming for a long time.”
In other words judges are making decisions that Staver doesn’t like. Fuck the Constitution and all that liberal elitist crap. None of that matters. By exactly what mechanism will, or should, judges lose their power? Federal judges are nominated by our President and confirmed by the Senate without consulting Mr. Staver. Rulings are subject to scrutiny through review by higher courts until they reach the US Supreme Court, again without consulting Mr. Staver. Should Justices Kennedy and Kagan (for example) lose their power over United States v. Windsor? How is that going to happen?