You just knew that conservatives would start spouting inanities when the supposedly safe Supreme Court started paving the way for gay marriage.
From the Twitter feed of Mike Huckabee (Republican ex-governor of Arkansas and am embarrassment to all Americans):
A politician should know that the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of whether any law is Constitutional: of course they’re bigger than voters and Congress when it comes to the validity of law. He should also know that our country is ruled by law and not God.
What amuses me is the notion that Huckabee is so sure about what God wants, but also implies that the other four people in robes—those who voted against gay marriage—do see that God is bigger than they are.
When I posted yesterday on the U.S. Supreme Court’s (SCOTUS) favorable rulings on gay marriage, I wanted to add something about the inevitable conservative claim that this would start us on the slippery slope toward humans marrying animals. Only a moron could think that this is a real possibility. But it turns out that the Christian Post anticipated this in an April 10 Op-Ed by Jerry Ralph Curry (a discredit to the honorable name of “Jerry”). Bolding is mine:
Homosexuals want to fundamentally change American society and the heterosexual way of life
If every American adopted this kind of lifestyle, a hundred years from now America would cease to exist, because during that period no children would be born. Should SCOTUS actually declare homosexuality a civil right, it logically follows that polygamy, pedophilia and bestiality would one day also be declared a civil right by the Court. In spite of society’s thirst for more modernism, inclusiveness and diversity, who would want to live in the midst of such moral depravity? . . .
. . . Our society and culture should not bless the homosexual life style just so a child can have two or more supposedly loving mothers or fathers. Because someone thinks they have fallen in love with a horse or a pet snake does not mean that they should be allowed to legally marry those animals with society’s blessing.
At the settling of an estate, just because an animal is mentioned in the will does not mean that that animal should be awarded a collection of Picasso paintings, a bank account, or a Bentley. For, over time, that is where all this leads.
Can anybody really call that argument rational? And OMG—humans marrying snakes! (But perhaps that’s what Mrs. Huckabee did.)