Tony Perkins thinks America will 'discard' judges' rulings for marriage equality

It's like I said before, in lieu of providing proof of their arguments in court cases (such as the recent marriage equality victories in Pennsylvania and Oregon), anti-gay organization leaders such as Family Research Council president Tony Perkins are whining about "activists judges."

What I didn't count on is how folks like Perkins would take the visage of dotty old men shaking their fists at the sun while talking about open rebellion against the courts:

Tony Perkins

Like a dozen black-robed activists before him, Judge Michael McShane argued, "Because Oregon's marriage laws discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation without a rational relationship to any legitimate government interest, the laws violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution." The state's failure to defend its own constitution, and the failure of an openly homosexual judge to recuse himself, demonstrate what an overreach this decision was. The deluge of rulings hit Pennsylvania next, where Judge John Jones wrote one of the harshest opinions yet, insisting that laws affirming natural marriage should be discarded "into the ash heap of history."

While both judges cited the Supreme Court's June decisions as a rational basis to destroy marriage, the high court said nothing that would give a federal judge the right to redefine marriage. In an interesting twist, both rulings came down within hours of Politico's new polling -- which showed that a clear majority of likely voters in swing states (52-48%) are digging in on their support of natural marriage.

Obviously, the Left's strategy of forcing this agenda through the courts is backfiring -- and it's only a matter of time before the country begins to discard the opinions of unelected judges on the same ash heap where Jones tried to send marriage. Just as the country has never accepted the Supreme Court's declaration of a "right" to destroy unborn human life in Roe v. Wade, we will never accept the Court's assertion of a "right" to change the definition of our most fundamental social institution. The courts can ignore natural law, or even suppress it, but they will never succeed in subduing it.

So according to Perkins, based on a poll which has nothing to do with marriage equality, court rulings are backfiring. In addition,  states should ignore the opinions of judges because they aren't elected anyway.

 For the life of me, I cannot understand why is Perkins raising so much hell after the fact. What would be so difficult for him or someone like fellow FRC spokesman Peter Sprigg to testify as to the validity of these laws during the trials? What's the point of whining after the fact if these so-called defenders of marriage pulled disappearing tricks when the validity of these laws were being decided?

We all know the answer to that question. Neither Perkins nor Sprigg, nor any other anti-gay talking head blanketing the airwaves whining about "activist judges" or the "will of the people" will volunteer to testify because they KNOW the laws aren't valid.  Of course no one interviewing Perkins and company ever seems to have the desire to pin them down on that point.

How convenient.

Also, I am a bit disturbed by Perkins' assertion that the country will start discarding court decisions they don't like. Mr. Perkins should be aware that this sort of thing is not what America is about. The legislators make the laws, sometimes the people vote on the laws, but at all times, the courts decide whether or not the laws are constitutionally valid.

And if they decide that the laws aren't constitutionally valid, then that means no more law. We no longer live in the era in which presidents, such as Andrew Jackson, ignored court rulings while daring them to enforce said rulings. I would like to think that some of us in this country have outgrown that sort of immaturity.

Lastly, and I think I speak for the vast majority of lgbts, I don't care whether or not Mr. Perkins accepts marriage equality. No one is asking him to participate in gay marriage. No one is asking him to accept marriage equality.  When he implies things like "we will not accept gay marriage," he would do well to remember that he doesn't speak for the entire country. No one elected him as president or spokesman (hell, I wouldn't elect him as dogcatcher). He dictates no policy, he creates no legislation. He is simply a charlatan in charge of an anti-gay hate group of assorted oddballs, bad actors, fake Christians, and phony preachers who have so far been relying on the charity of a lazy and overly accommodating Beltway media.

You think I want those bozos to accept MY wedding whether I am gay or heterosexual?

Related posts:

Will anti-gay propaganda artists obscure truth of marriage equality victories? 

Marriage equality opponents need genuine 'come to Jesus' moment about their leaders