The Supreme Court ruled in no uncertain terms that bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional, meaning the government cannot tell gay couples that they cannot obtain marriage licenses. Bans on gay marriage violate the Fourteenth Amendment.
Not so, says Mike Huckabee. Just because the Supreme Court said gay marriage bans are unconstitutional doesn't mean it's the law according to him.
Actually, that's exactly what it means, but Mike Huckabee is clearly a confused person.
During an interview with wingnut radio host Michael Medved, Huckabee criticized people who say marriage equality is the "law of the land" by citing Dred Scott.
“I’ve been just drilled by TV hosts over the past week, ‘How dare you say that, uh, it’s not the law of the land?’” Huckabee said. “Because that’s their phrase, ‘it’s the law of the land. Michael, the Dred Scott decision of 1857 still remains to this day the law of the land which says that black people aren’t fully human. Does anybody still follow the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision?”
Actually, no.
No one follows the Dred Scott decision because the Dred Scott decision was overturned with a constitutional amendment passed by Congress, signed by the president, and ratified by the states. Dred Scott is not the "law of the land."
Huckabee is clearly unaware of this because when asked by Medved if he supports a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, Huckabee said it isn't necessary. Because magic.
“I don’t think that’s necessary,” Huckabee replied. “Because, in the case of this decision, it goes back to what Jefferson said that if a decision is rendered that is not borne out by the will of the people either through their elected people and gone through the process, if you just say, it’s the law of the land because the court decided, then Jefferson said, ‘You now have surrendered to judicial tyranny.’”
The Constitution, how does it work?
If anyone has "surrendered" to the judiciary, it's conservatives like Huckabee who've ruled out passing a constitutional amendment. Congress has the tools to overturn court decisions with amendments, but there is no will to do so in this case. That's not tyranny.
Die-hard Jesus-humpers should be asking their leaders why they won't even attempt to pass a constitutional amendment. Ask their leaders why they've surrendered.
They may not like the answer. The idea that they're being persecuted in Obama's America is far more sexy than being told the modern electorate has no appetite for codifying discrimination. Being a victim is more enthralling than being told they're irrelevant.