This deserves its own post separate from the one I wrote on Rick Warren’s presidential forum earlier. No, he doesn’t say that in so many words, but that’s exactly what would happen:

Neither candidate shied away from a question about which current Supreme Court justice they would not have nominated.

Obama’s reply: Clarence Thomas.

“I don’t think he was a strong enough jurist or a legal thinker at the time for that. I profoundly disagree with his interpretation” of the Constitution, he said.

McCain said he would have never nominated Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.

“This nomination should be based on the criteria on a proven record of strictly adhering to the Constitution and not legislating from the bench,” McCain added.

Those are the exact people sitting on the bench, minus Kennedy, who voted in favor of the Lawrence v. Texas decision that banned sodomy laws. He pretty much said that he wants to recriminalize homosexuality.

There isn’t much better code to speak in here. The very fundies that he was speaking to at that forum were exactly the people who thought that Lawrence, along with Roe and Griswold, was an extreme case of judicial activism:

In 2003, in Lawrence v. Texas, the court threw out all bans on sex acts between homosexuals, saying, according to Barron, “The right to privacy also included the right for same-sex couples to engage in same-sex sexual acts.”

And later in 2003, when Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, it cited Lawrence v. Texas as justification.

Sekulow sees these rights expounded in Goodridge and Lawrence going straight back to Griswold.

“If you see a decision out of the Supreme Court that says same-sex marriage is required — if that were to happen, I think they will find it primarily…originally…in Griswold, and bring it forward,” Sekulow observed.

While it seems like the media doesn’t really want to catch this goal (gay rights discourse is focused on marriage, and Lawrence seemed like a final decision to almost everyone), but McCain was talking to the exact audience that would want that case overturned, who agree with his reasoning, and he named almost every justice in that majority in his hit list.

Besides, whether he ever talks about wanting to reinstate sodomy laws or not, this is the most effective, direct, and, well, only way for sodomy laws to come back. And he’s made it a central talking point when addressing fundamentalist audiences.

We shouldn’t forget how easy it would be for that case to be overturned and to go back to the days when we were criminals just for loving.

Update: This is also a major flip-flop:

McCain wasn’t a senator when Stevens was nominated, but why did he nevertheless vote to confirm Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter?

It seems he was for them before he was against them.

Will anyone pick up on this and ask him? Doubtful.

But even if he is flip-flopping here, I see no reason to doubt him. He only cares about killing people and getting money, so it’s unlikely that he was lying here but that he’ll nominate decent human beings to the Supreme Court. He’ll do whatever the Religious Right wants on judicial nominations because he just doesn’t care.

Oh, my, Senator McCain. What on earth will you do?

Pastor Rick Warren, who moderated the first forum between John McCain and Barack Obama on Saturday at his mega-ministry’s Saddleback Church, in Lake Forrest, California, was asked on Good Morning America whether he’d have a problem trusting or voting for someone who committed adultery.

WARREN: You have to earn that trust. All leadership is built on trust. It’s built on credibility. If you don’t have credibility, if you don’t have authenticity, if you don’t have trust, you’re not a leader even if you have the title. And the moment you lose the trust of the American public you’re no longer the leader. You may still have the title but you’re not it. It takes years to build trust and you can lose it instantly — and it takes even longer to rebuild.

…TAPPER: Would you have compunctions about voting for someone who had cheated on his wife?

WARREN: Absolutely I would. Absolutely I would. Because if you can’t keep your faith to your most sacred vow – “’til death do us part” — how in the world can I trust you to lead my family? My government? My nation?…Absolutely I would. I think people first need to ask forgiveness and then earn trust back over time Can trust be re-earned? Absolutely but it takes time.

You see, when the party of “family values” viewed protecting marriage as an anchor or wedge position, they smiled when it brought votes home. Now the loose-zipper pols have to deal with the blowback — it’s time to play the hypocrisy card since John McCain has embraced the American Taliban.

A liberal Christian group supporting Obama, The Matthew 25 Network has an ad that puts the Arizona senator right in the family values light he deserves. Pastors Kirbyjon and Suzette Caldwell and Catholic theologian Lisa Cahill discuss Senator’s Obama’s faith and commitment to families.

Brian McLaren: “As a pastor, I know you can learn a lot about a man’s character by how he treats his family.”

KirbyJon Caldwell (spiritual adviser to Dear Leader, no less): “Barack is a strong man of Christian faith who has been married to his wife Michelle for 16 years…Throughout his entire career he’s stood by families.”

Perhaps the presumptive GOP nominee would like to discuss the state of his marriage, in light of the fact the John Edwards’ problems have been media fodder for the last several days, and that McCain believes in preserving the sanctity of marriage for heterosexuals only.

Caldwell, who was the pastor at Jenna Bush’s wedding, also said this:

“Well, I don’t know a lot about John McCain’s family history, I do know, however, that as recently as last week I think it was, the Senator made a comment in South Dakota regarding his wife entering some Buffalo Chips contest which is this topless deal and if she were to enter she would probably win it and my personal opinion and based on my understanding of the Christian faith, that’s not not, N-O-T, not the type of expression that a presidential candidate, or anyone for that matter who is a follower of the Christian faith, ought to make,” said the Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell.

H/t, Orion45.