He actually went there!
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/alabama-supreme-court-justice-tom-parker-state-courts-must-defy-supreme-courts-gay-marriage-
After making the case that the Obergefell decision does not even apply to Alabama, Parker absurdly asserted that the Supreme Court had no grounds upon which to issue the decision in the first place because gays are not being denied equal treatment under the law since everyone is free to marry someone of the opposite sex.
Gee, one of the big arguments made in Loving v Virginia was that blacks weren't being discriminated against because everyone had the right to marry someone of the same race.
That's what's so amazing about these people.
If you check the records, you'll see pretty much the same arguments that were used against blacks have been used against gays. And not just about marriage.
Back when they were integrating the military you got the same arguments that were used against letting gays be in the military. I mean *word for word*. Just swap a few phrase from being about race to being about homosexuality.
Ditto for more general civil rights for blacks. I don't think anybody said being black was a sin (except maybe for the Mormons before that revelation that changed their doctrine about admitting blacks) But there were a lot of people who said it was God's will to keep the races separate.
In my not-so-humble opinion, this is symptomatic of a xenophobic mindset and/or a certain sort of narrow mindedness.
It'd never fly, but just imagine the time we'd save in the courts if we listed those sort of arguments in "fill in the blank" form and passed a law (probably need to be a constitutional amendment) saying that such argument were not legally admissible.
Or at the very least, that they required *strong* proof in their favor.
Of course, these sorts of people would complain that they were being discriminated against.
To which my reply is "it is not, nor should it be, illegal to discriminate against stupidity, ignorant prejudices and the like"
After making the case that the Obergefell decision does not even apply to Alabama, Parker absurdly asserted that the Supreme Court had no grounds upon which to issue the decision in the first place because gays are not being denied equal treatment under the law since everyone is free to marry someone of the opposite sex.
Gee, one of the big arguments made in Loving v Virginia was that blacks weren't being discriminated against because everyone had the right to marry someone of the same race.
That's what's so amazing about these people.
If you check the records, you'll see pretty much the same arguments that were used against blacks have been used against gays. And not just about marriage.
Back when they were integrating the military you got the same arguments that were used against letting gays be in the military. I mean *word for word*. Just swap a few phrase from being about race to being about homosexuality.
Ditto for more general civil rights for blacks. I don't think anybody said being black was a sin (except maybe for the Mormons before that revelation that changed their doctrine about admitting blacks) But there were a lot of people who said it was God's will to keep the races separate.
In my not-so-humble opinion, this is symptomatic of a xenophobic mindset and/or a certain sort of narrow mindedness.
It'd never fly, but just imagine the time we'd save in the courts if we listed those sort of arguments in "fill in the blank" form and passed a law (probably need to be a constitutional amendment) saying that such argument were not legally admissible.
Or at the very least, that they required *strong* proof in their favor.
Of course, these sorts of people would complain that they were being discriminated against.
To which my reply is "it is not, nor should it be, illegal to discriminate against stupidity, ignorant prejudices and the like"