Mat Staver: Anti-Gay Activists, Like Rosa Parks, Won't 'Walk To The Back Of The Bus' | Right Wing Watch

Staver has to be one of he dumbest, if not the dumbest lawyer in the country:

He also addressed claims that the arguments in favor of the same-sex marriage bans are similar to the ones made defending bans on interracial marriage, which were also said to be based on moral, biblical teachings and not discriminatory in nature. Staver dubiously suggested that while homosexuality “has always been, up until recently been, described through millennia of human history as a crime against nature,” racial bias is not rooted in history.

“There is nothing historically or throughout our long history of Judeo-Christianity that says that someone who’s got dark skin can’t marry someone who’s got white skin or lighter color skin. That’s never been rooted in our history, that’s never been rooted in natural law, that’s never been rooted in millennia of human history,” Staver said. “Marriage is objectively, to use a philosophical term, ontologically, the union of a man and a woman. If you can’t get that right, good grief, how can you be a judge on any court?”

Excuse me?  Uhm,,,Mat, are you a graduate of Beck U or somethin'?  Your history is all wrong!

Have you not read Loving v Virginia?  The same argument - never been rooted in our history - was made in favor of "racial"  bans going back to the days when the states were still controlled by the British.  Such was exemplified by Justice Warren's opinion:

At the October Term, 1958, of the Circuit Court of Caroline County, a grand jury issued an indictment charging the Loving,,,.   He [referring to trial judge Leon M. Bazile] stated in an opinion that:  

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix. 

[,,,]
Virginia is now one of 16 States which prohibit and punish marriages on the basis of racial classifications.  Penalties for miscegenation arose as an incident to slavery, and have been common in Virginia since the colonial period.
[,,,]
In Naim, the state court concluded that the State's legitimate purposes were "to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens," and to prevent "the corruption of blood," "a mongrel breed of citizens," and "the obliteration of racial pride," obviously an endorsement of the doctrine of White Supremacy.
[,,,]
The second argument advanced by the State assumes the validity of its equal application theory. The argument is that, if the Equal Protection Clause does not outlaw miscegenation statutes because of their reliance on racial classifications, the question of constitutionality would thus become whether there was any rational basis for a State to treat interracial marriages differently from other marriages. On this question, the State argues, the scientific evidence is substantially in doubt and, consequently, this Court should defer to the wisdom of the state legislature in adopting its policy of discouraging interracial marriages.

Interracial marriage was banned for centuries in this country, rooted in our history.

Mat Staver: Anti-Gay Activists, Like Rosa Parks, Won't 'Walk To The Back Of The Bus' | Right Wing Watch