The Watering Hole, Monday, May 18, 2015: Bryan Fischer Threatens Violence

There are some male opponents of same-sex marriage who desperately need for it to remain illegal lest they leave their wives and follow their hearts to find the man of their dreams and settle down to a life of happiness. I’m beginning to wonder if Bryan Fischer is one of them. The very idea that the Supreme Court might actually strike down all bans on marriage equality and declare it a constitutional right (thanks, in part, to Justice Antonin Scalia’s own opinions, in which he suggested the strategy to use for marriage equality proponents to win) has Fischer scared. Very scared. But what does he have to fear if his own marriage is solid and loving? In what way would the right of people (who have no interest in him) to marry each other affect him? Is he afraid that the last thing to stop him from leaving his wife to shack up with another man is a law making that relationship with that man illegal? What else makes sense? Unless he means the violence.

Fischer is pretending that what he fears is the civil unrest that a ruling in support of marriage equality would make inevitable.

“The Supreme Court can be slapped down through a deliberative and representative process,” he said, “rather than through chaos and civil unrest which I and a lot of other pro-family leaders fear is the alternative. If the Supreme Court continues to overreach and they aren’t checked, we are headed towards civil unrest, I don’t think there is any other way around it. If it’s not stopped and reversed, the tyrannical overreach of the Supreme Court, we are to have social dislocation and I believe we are going to have violence as a result. And that is simply because freedom is too deeply ingrained in the DNA of the American people to permit tyranny to continue unchecked forever. The solution: state legislatures rediscovering their constitutional authority under the Ninth and 10th Amendments. “

Tell us something, Bryan. Who would be committing these acts of chaos, these acts of civil unrest, these acts of violence? Would it be the people who support marriage equality? Or would it be the people like you and the other “pro-family leaders” who will be taking to the streets to spread chaos, be civilly unrestful, and commit acts of violence? I think we who support marriage equality are the ones who have something to fear from the people who oppose it, not the other way around. When we start hearing we might lose, we start taking action to elect Democratic Senators and Presidents who will make sure these socially deficient rulings are reversed. When your side starts hearing it might lose, you talk about taking to the streets and committing violence. Who are the real domestic terrorists in this scenario, the ones who want a peaceful remedy to our disagreements, or the ones who talk casually about violence?

Lastly, I think you States Rights’ advocates don’t seem to have gotten the memo yet. The Constitution is not the Articles of Confederation. You keep talking about how the States have the power to enact these same-sex marriage bans because the Constitution doesn’t give the federal government the right to regulate marriage. You frequently refer to the Tenth Amendment and how it means the States have the power over things the federal government doesn’t. But that’s only partly correct. First, you’re deliberately misinterpreting the Ninth Amendment as having something to do with States’ Rights. A plain reading of it proves it doesn’t. Here it is.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

You have to read the Tenth Amendment in conjunction with the Ninth to understand why the People have rights even the states can’t take away.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In all your States’ Rights talk, you leave out the rights reserved to the people, the ones who have specifically have rights not mentioned in the Constitution. And one of those rights reserved to the people is the right to marry the person of your choice. Not people, not pets, not some perversion I don’t wish to name, but person. One person. So stop the polygamy and polyandry claims, stop the bestiality claims, stop the perversion claims. Nobody has ever seriously argued that marriage should be between anything other than two, and only two, people. (Some nutjobs might have, but they are few in number and can safely be regarded as totally without public influence. In fact, if you never brought them up, we’d never hear about them.)

You also leave out the Fourteenth Amendment, one of the most important constitutional amendments in human history. Without the 14th, your 1st Amendment rights mean nothing. If you read the Bill of Rights carefully, it says nothing about the States not being allowed to infringe upon your right to freedom of religion, or free speech, or a free press, or free assembly, or the freedom to petition the government. The 14th Amendment does. It says:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That means the rights you have as a federal citizen are now the rights you have as a citizen of your state. So your state can’t block your right to freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly or petitioning. What never ceases to amaze me, Bryan, is how you States’ Rights advocates get all up in arms about freedoms you claim the federal government is taking away from its citizens, but you are perfectly happy with your own state taking away those same freedoms. So why are you so opposed to the federal government saying the states can’t deny citizens within its borders their right to marry? What is it you’re so afraid will happen. Bryan? That you’ll run out into the streets to commit acts of violence against your fellow citizens, or that you’ll leave your wife for another man? I’ll support you 100% on the latter, but not on the former.

This is our daily open thread. Feel free to make fun of Bryan Fischer’s paranoia, how my interpretations of the Constitution are off the mark, or anything else you wish to discuss.

40 thoughts on “The Watering Hole, Monday, May 18, 2015: Bryan Fischer Threatens Violence

  1. How does the old saying go?
    “Me thinks ye doth protest too much”

    I could be off a little but you get the general idea.

  2. A few years ago, there was a preacher in an evangelical mega-church in Colorado Springs — Haggard, iirc — who preached all the fundie crapola including their anti-LGBT horse hockey. Then he resigned after it was revealed that he had been a regular customer of a gay prostitute in the Denver area.

    Buttcakes like Fischer — and he is only one of many many many — spout bullshit on a daily basis to their followers,which their followers readily believe and love to hear. The fact that it has zero substance is of no interest to any of them; they’re all too blind to see that NOTHING these turkeys preach EVER comes to pass, but the fools among us believe it anyway, and apparently there’s money in it. Alex Jones, for example, has not, to my knowledge, ever spoken a single word other than wild-eyed conspiracy horseshit, and that’s the one thing none of his followers never notice. There are dimwits around here who worship Jones, and if he were to yell “shit” they’d drop their drawers immediately.

    A good-sized portion of Amurkkka is mentally void, and the wingnuts of every persuasion use it every day. There’s money in it.

    Final thought on bestiality: I could care less if some guy wants to marry a cow, and it should be permitted with the simple proviso that both signatures are required on the license and must be signed in ink. I mean, if the cow refuses to sign . . . etc.

    • I believe he said in his mind he felt he was ready to be the Commander-in-Chief, ha, what neo-con wouldn’t think that when they believe policy should be based on fear of our military. In my mind I have better qualifications to deal with major conflicts having been twice divorced!🙂

    • Well you can’t say the GOP doesn’t have a diverse field now can we?

  3. fear. Fear. FEAR!
    The entire reichwingnuttia community has only one common thread.
    Invest heavily in stain removing laundry products.

    • A “tolerant” religion is one that celebrates the idea everyone has the right to believe whatever they wish. Period. End of story. ANY religion that believes it has the “right” to impose itself on ANYONE else is intolerant and needs to be destroyed.

    • Molly Ivins reckons he’s worse than Shrub. Just ask Terry Schiavo’s husband.

    • Are we sure he was actually there, I mean sometimes he says he’s there and actually isn’t…..?

    • And for some reason it’s all because there are too many black single mothers or maybe he was possessed by a secular progressive demon?

    • OK, which right wing billionaire bought him a twitter account so he could shill for TPP even more?

  4. I ran across this article, and a follow-up to it, through our local Patch news site. Apparently President Obama is looking to limit some of the military items that would be available to police forces, banning some materiel entirely, and severely limiting access to others. The President had a discussion with the Camden, NJ, police department – I can’t wait ’til he talks to De Blasio!

    • Given the current condition of roadway infrastructure I’m torn as to whether municipalities and law enforcement having half track vehicles is good or bad; On one hand half tracks would contribute to road deterioration but on the other hand roads may deteriorate to the point that emergency vehicles may need half tracks just to get around. Grenade launchers are a definite no way Jose!

Comments are closed.