Said Congressman Glenn Thompson at the wedding of his son, quoted in "Listen To The Speech A Republican Lawmaker Gave At His Gay Son’s Wedding/Days After Voting Against Marriage Equality/'We’re just blessed, and we just want to say thank you to everyone here as part of the celebration,' said Rep. Glenn Thompson, three days after voting against codifying marriage equality in federal law" (BuzzFeedNews).
Thompson was "one of 157 House Republicans who voted against the Respect for Marriage Act, which acts as a failsafe in case the Supreme Court reverses itself on marriage equality."
The name of the son who got married is redacted from Buzzfeed's transcript (and audio), so they must think there's something unseemly about intruding on the family wedding. And yet, they wanted to call out the hypocrisy.
I'm sure Thompson is saying it's not hypocritical, because he merely declined to play along with the Democrats' political theater, and: 1. The Supreme Court is not about to overturn its same-sex marriage opinion, and 2. Questions of family law traditionally and properly are decided at the state-government level. I'm not even going to look it up. It's too obvious to spend time on.
By the way, BuzzFeeds original headline was slightly different:
See the difference? They changed "Son's Gay Wedding" to "Gay Son's Wedding." Unless you're trying to comment — awkwardly! — on the decor and the music and things like that, it's not the wedding that's gay.
Posts
81 comments:
Interesting. There is only one thing in the article that would even make me suspect that the authors thought this was hypocrisy: The use of the word at one point in the article ("The hypocrisy of Thompson’s vote"). Otherwise, it all sounds fine, if a little ironic: He gave a speech supporting something, after he opposed a certain law supporting it for any of many reasons. Normal, really.
The comments there do not see it that way.
Of course it's hypocritical. If someone doesn't do the left's bidding, it's because they are a bigot who hates their gay son. And for a man to get up and say loving things at the wedding of a son he hates, well, words fail.
"The Supreme Court is not about to overturn its same-sex marriage opinion"
Just like they weren't going to overturn Roe.
Didn't Thomas expressly state wanting to revisit Obergfell? Seems like we already have a vote for doing what you state will never happen.
This is where the GOP is stupid. Why not vote to codify gay marriage at the Federal Level? What's the harm? It's a civil issue, not religious. It's here to stay, so why give the Dems the ammunition? This was a symbolic "who gives a shit" vote.
So many said Roe v. Wade would never be overturned, it’s not a stretch that same sex marriage is next. As for this proud papa Congressman, hypocrisy is evident and makes me question his sincerity. Maybe he thinks his son is special and his son’s same sex marriage is worthy and everyone else’s same sex marriage is not.
Without Obergefell, Most States Would Have Same-Sex Marriage Bans
“Thirty-five states ban same-sex marriage in their constitutions, state law, or both, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures and Stateline research.
All were invalidated in 2015 by the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling. But should the now-more-conservative U.S. Supreme Court overturn the right to same-sex marriages, those state laws and constitutional amendments would kick in.
“These constitutional amendments are still on the books and would likely be put in place,” said Jason Pierceson, a political science professor at the University of Illinois, Springfield and author of “Same-Sex Marriage in the United States: The Road to the Supreme Court and Beyond.””
and: 1. The Supreme Court is not about to overturn its same-sex marriage opinion
You'd bet on that? Care to make it interesting?
"full of joy, merry; light-hearted, carefree;", less the parade of lions, lioness, and unPlanned cubs.
That said, he probably opposed political congruence ("="), a Pro-Choice ethical religious construct, not trans/homosexual unions.
Like abortion, marriage is a State Power
"It's too obvious to spend time on."
It is and it isn't. From a nice, rational standpoint, yes. But it doesn't stop progs from hammering away at the public's sensibilities. Sure, Althouse is somewhat immune. But after a while, defenses wear down.
Hey, if they are willing to assassinate a Supreme Court Justice over Roe v Wade, what's the big deal about invading the privacy of a family? Of course rejecting the gay son would have made a better story but you can't have everything.
Wow...monkeypox really is having an effect. From the monotonous orgies to the the monogamy of the marriage circuit, monkeypox scares em out of their socks and into the bridal shops!
Lol, I'm just kidding about gay monogamy. Still, it is useful to have a partner to help you check for blisters after a depraved weekend. Good for them!
I love the distinction! I've never been to the wedding of a gay couple, but I've definitely been to a few gay weddings.
And, while I've tried to swear off making political predictions, I agree that the SCOTUS is never going to review this. To paraphrase Virginia Postrel - Weddings of gay couples end with champagne; abortions end with a medical waste bag containing human remains.
What he neglected to mention, in all his talk of parental hopes and dreams, is that no one hopes their kids will turn out to be homosexual.
“The Supreme Court is not about to overturn its same-sex marriage opinion.”
How can you be so sure of that?
What protections are there against Dobbs leading to further limitations on the "right to privacy?"
1. Several judges in the Dobbs majority seem to say they simply see a difference: contraception and gay marriage under substantive due process yes, consenting adults, abortion no because there is this other entity, apparently human or potentially human.
2. Thomas dislikes perhaps all applications of substantive due process, going back to Dred Scott and Lochner. Proposes "privileges and immunities" of citizens and residents throughout the states, but it's unlikely he'd include the right to privacy in that. He would go back to usage or common belief in some earlier period. Equal protection of the laws?
3. What about the full faith and credit clause? As long as a couple has a valid marriage license from one state, it could be argued that all states have to recognize it. Conservative states could be spared from actually giving legal approval.
4. Surely on the basis of popularity alone, contraception should be safe. If left to the states, why is it not like alcohol and cannabis, different states having different rules? The feds still make cannabis Schedule 3 or whatever on grounds of public health. Alcohol certainly raises health issues. Is a population with a lot of contraception altogether healthier than one without?
1. The Supreme Court is not about to overturn its same-sex marriage opinion, and 2. Questions of family law traditionally and properly are decided at the state-government level.
You want to bet money on #1? Within the next year or so some state (most likely Florida, maybe Kentucky, Alabama or Mississippi) is going to pass a new law banning same sex marriage. The Supreme Court will take the case and overturn Obergefell.
As for your second point, does that mean Loving was wrongly decided? Shouldn't the states decide who can get married? Besides, can you imagine what a mess family law would be if marriages recognized by some states (and the federal government) but not others? The tax and inheritance complications alone would keep lawyers in Mercedes for the foreseeable future.
Family ... waddaya gonna do ...
Maybe for him it is only the wedding that's gay, and there a a lot of ironic quotation marks in family conversations.
Please notice that I wrote: "I'm sure Thompson is saying it's not hypocritical, because he merely declined to play along with the Democrats' political theater, and: 1. The Supreme Court is not about to overturn its same-sex marriage opinion, and 2. Questions of family law traditionally and properly are decided at the state-government level. I'm not even going to look it up. It's too obvious to spend time on."
The statement "1. The Supreme Court is not about to overturn its same-sex marriage opinion" is not me making a prediction. It's me guessing at how Thompson is denying hypocrisy.
WTF is that noise about C-section? That's the only comment in his speech that offends me. What about "Every kid showed up through a vagina so it wasn’t all pleasant"? Would he overshare that thought with the guests?
The Congressman is behaving entirely correctly:
1: He understands that same sex "marriages" are bullshit, that they do not provide society with the benefits that real marriages do, and that therefore the Federal gov't should not be supporting them
2: H loves and supports his son, even when he thinks what his son is doing is wrong, or that his son is doing something that's currently legal, but shouldn't be.
Kudos to Congressman Glenn Thompson
Freder Frederson said...
1. The Supreme Court is not about to overturn its same-sex marriage opinion, and 2. Questions of family law traditionally and properly are decided at the state-government level.
You want to bet money on #1? Within the next year or so some state (most likely Florida, maybe Kentucky, Alabama or Mississippi) is going to pass a new law banning same sex marriage. The Supreme Court will take the case and overturn Obergefell.
So, Freder, are you saying that SCOTUS would be wrong to dump Obergefell? Or are you agreeing it's an utterly crap decision, but it should be kept around anyway.
As for your second point, does that mean Loving was wrongly decided? Shouldn't the states decide who can get married?
14th Amendment was passed to keep States from treating blacks differently than whites. 100+ years of history after that says "separate" is not "equal"
So in this case, the US Constititon supports the ruling.
Now, when was it that Congress passed, and the State ratified, a Constitutional Amendment requiring the sexes to be treated identically (the ERA failed), or requiring homosexuals to be treated the same as heterosexuals?
It hasn't?
Well then, Obergefell is illegitimate, unlike Loving
Gusty Winds said...
This is where the GOP is stupid. Why not vote to codify gay marriage at the Federal Level? What's the harm?
because it's a bullshit illegitimate decision by a corrupt Court
And until that illegitimate decision is overturned, nothing should be done, in any way, shape or form, to give it any legitimacy.
The Defense of Marriage Act was passed with broad Democrat and Republican support, and signed into law by Democrat President Clinton.
Windsor and Obergefell need to be junked, and the decision only then returned to the political process
But so long as NY & CA aren't forced to honor my concealed carry permit under "full faith and credit", I see absolutely NO reason why Alabama should be forced to accept your NY same sex "marriage" certificate.
2: He loves and supports his son, even when he thinks what his son is doing is wrong, or that his son is doing something that's currently legal, but shouldn't be.
Yes.
AA, "Questions of family law traditionally and properly are decided at the state-government level."
And I think that was the basis for Scalia's dissent.
Maybe some of our resident leftists can tell us just why the federal government needs to stick its nose into marriage in the first place.
Thirty-five states ban same-sex marriage in their constitutions, state law, or both, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures and Stateline research.
The same could have been said for a while after Loving. And yet today, anti-miscegenation laws are all gone. You know why? Because Legislators voted that way. And there isn't much the Supreme Court could do about it, is there?
So why haven't Democrats -- in WI, for example, when they have been in charge -- not passed laws allowing sensible abortions? Why don't they introduce such laws now? Because they don't want to. Because they raise money and votes via scare tactics.
The bigotry, you say. Civil unions for all consenting adults and differently identified.
Do we really need to go over this again? Didn't last time lead to the late unpleasantness?
Look, Obergefell and "same-sex marriage" is not about whether two people of the same sex can do this or that regarding marriage. It is entirely about forcing other people to recognize them as married and publicly affirm that they are "married." All the benefits of marriage, like tax deductions, can be provided by other means, but SSM is explicitly about redefining "marriage" from its historically-recognized ontological state and using the power of the state to demand that other people say that what they know to be false is true, namely, that a man and a man are married to each other.
Two people of the same sex can always do it the common law way, or get some leftist church to hear their vows, but this has always been about the destruction of the old and imposition of their new manufactured fiction. Just exactly like now having to say that a man is a woman.
Meanwhile, the same-sex crowd demonstrates their new respect and demand for marriage by continuing with the anti-marriage sex orgies and rest stop hookups.
One of the things I've learned over my many years living on this earth is that laws often don't mean what they say they mean. Or contain extraneous goodies unrelated to the supposed issue at hand. Or contain the seeds of unintended consequences that can result in great harm.
So just for the fun of it, I decided to read the Bill that the good Congressman voted against.
I am not a lawyer and am generally not familiar with the specific forms and language used in such legislation. But I got three pages into the Bill, and encountered language that to me sounded like States would be bound to honor marriages entered into in foreign countries, with all the complications that implies. So the State of Nebraska would be bound to honor marriages entered into in Afghanistan for example. Would that validate a marriage of an eight year old? How would that impact rights to inheritances and estates? What if in some countries women are not allowed to inherit?
Again, I'm not a lawyer so these hypotheticals on my part may be total baloney. But my point is that without knowing all that is in that Bill, it's a little presumptuous to call the Congressman a hypocrite. We do far too much of that. You can be supportive of Gay marriage but be against the Bill as drafted.
The man clearly loves his son and the man that his son is marrying. Give him a break.
So many said Roe v. Wade would never be overturned
who were These ignorant idiots?
Seriously, HOW STUPID do you have to be to think Roe would never be overturned?
That you never WANTED it to be overturned? Sure..
That you thought it 'would ever be overturned?' Honestly, is there a person on Earth that dumb?
Never Say Never
14th Amendment was passed to keep States from treating blacks differently than whites. 100+ years of history after that says "separate" is not "equal"
Actually, it took almost 100 years to overturn the "separate but equal" doctrine (and thirteen years between Brown and Loving).
And this is all well and good if you believe in substantive due process, Thomas has made it clear he absolutely thinks substantive due process is bullshit.
Freder - I'll bet you a shiny new dime that SCOTUS will not overturn Obergefell within three years. In fact, I'll send you a nickle if anyone other than Thomas votes to HEAR a case like you describe. (I agree that the first part of your scenario might happen.) Thomas believes that substantive due process is hot garbage. He's written the same opinion more than once. He has NEVER gotten another judge to sign on. Incrementalists like Roberts and Kavanaugh are never going to go along.
Of course - Yogi, predictions, the future. I'm willing to risk $.15.
“As for your second point, does that mean Loving was wrongly decided? Shouldn't the states decide who can get married?”
Inter racial marriage and gay marriage are NOT the same and the vast majority of black people do not appreciate people using them as cudgels to win political points for gays. If you knew any black people well you would know that. Many consider it right bellow the n word in rudeness and possible racism.
No one has brought up the forced cake-baking.
The gays overran their headlights with the forced cake-baking, and they know it.
Red states might not try to outlaw gay marriage entirely, but they may try to protect free expression and association, and wind up in front of a court that just overturned a 50-year precedent, so would haveno qualms about overturning a 5-year-old precedent.
The gays fear this.
JSM
The Trump Triumvirate on the Court + Roberts won’t revisit Gay Marriage because of Article IV’s Full Faith & Credit requirement. Even if Gay Marriage were not a constitutional right, it would be (and was in more than 20 states back in 2015) legal in most states.
So when a gay couple married in New York moves to Mississippi and that state refuses to recognize the marriage, the Supreme Court would have to rule one way or the other. Alito and Thomas would roll up their sleeves with relish on that case, but the others want no part of that.
This is where the GOP is stupid. Why not vote to codify gay marriage at the Federal Level?
Because
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.
I don’t think government should be involved in marriage. It is a spiritual act. I see no hypocrisy in the congressman’s action in refusing the government’s involvement and supporting the spiritual act.
It's possible that Thompson distinguishes between his personal feelings on the matter and the feelings of the constituents he represents.
The only parent goals for offspring to be healthy strong and smart. Everything else is putting lipstick on a pig or guilding the lily.
I have a slightly different perspective on this topic. I don’t know anything about Congressman Glenn Thompson, his family, or his personal convictions. Years ago, the late Pro Football Hall of Famer Reggie White said (I think on the floor of the Wisconsin legislature, but don’t quote me where he said it) about gay people “Love the sinner, not the sin.”. Reggie was an ordained Christian minister and what he said was in line with Jesus Christ’s teachings about people according to the New Testament. Rep. Thompson obviously loves his son and new son-in-law, even if he might personally be opposed to his son’s gay marriage. I have a couple of gay male relatives who have gotten married. In both cases, the parents, who are devout Christians, were not happy but have gotten over their sons marrying men and accepted with love their son-in-law. That doesn’t mean that they are now pro-gay marriage. BTW, one of my gay relatives is now going through a messy divorce. Sometimes, the only winners in the gay marriage debate are the divorce attorneys…
It's not a federal fucking issue.
Hey, if they are willing to assassinate a Supreme Court Justice over Roe v Wade
Who exactly is "they". There was one disturbed young man who plotted an assassination of Kavanaugh. He changed his mind and turned himself in.
It is rich that you claim that the violence is on the side of pro-choice advocates, when almost all the violence (including arson, murder and bombing) in the abortion debate has come from your side.
"He understands that same sex "marriages" are bullshit, that they do not provide society with the benefits that real marriages do, and that therefore the Federal gov't should not be supporting them"
So the rule of law only has to protect contracts that provide benefits to THE STATE. Got it, comrade. joking, joking, joking.
"Gay son's wedding" means the wedding of his gay son, which could be to a woman. It used to be common for gay men to marry women. "Son's gay wedding" means the son is marrying a man. I expect that's the distinction they were trying to make, albeit awkwardly.
Inter racial marriage and gay marriage are NOT the same and the vast majority of black people do not appreciate people using them as cudgels to win political points for gays. If you knew any black people well you would know that.
Well, if you dispense with substantive due process, which Thomas wants to do, how is there a difference? Inter racial marriage is certainly not "“deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” nor “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty”, which apparently is the new standard for protected constitutional rights. According to this Supreme Court, eEven a 100 year old law limiting concealed carry is apparently not "deeply rooted in this"". Nation's history and tradition."
I know many Black people well (some of them are also gay), and frankly, your claim that you are tuned into the black zeitgeist is just bullshit.
He understands that same sex "marriages" are bullshit, that they do not provide society with the benefits that real marriages do, and that therefore the Federal gov't should not be supporting them
So the Federal (or state) government should only support marriages that provide society with benefits. I assume by this you mean having and rearing children. So in your perfect world, you would require couples to affirm that they are capable of, and plan to have children. Otherwise, no marriage for you.
Inga doubts the Congressman's sincerity. My wife and I have two daughters--both now in their early 50s. Each has been married for 15 years or more. I put a lot of thougoht into what I'd say at their weddings. If you are a loving father what you say at a daughter's or a son's wedding will be sincere. You love your children and hope for the best.
But life has a way of being something of a crapshoot, and things don't always turn out the way you hoped. While you do the best you can (or at least should try to do that) raising a child to maturity and having them be strong, happy, smart and with their heads screwed on right is mostly a matter of pure dumb luck. My wife and I were lucky--my sister not so much with her son.
It is rich that you claim that the violence is on the side of pro-choice advocates, when almost all the violence (including arson, murder and bombing) in the abortion debate has come from...
...pro-abortionists killing innocent human beings. About 70 million slaughtered in the last 50 years.
That's something that a guy who takes his alternate name from a Hitler-figure should be familiar with.
Incrementalists like Roberts and Kavanaugh are never going to go along.
Well your incrementalist Roberts dissented in Obergefell, so I don't think he is a safe bet to uphold it. As for Kavanaugh, he signed on to Alito's decision in Dobbs, so his incrementalism is suspect at best.
'It is rich that you claim that the violence is on the side of pro-choice advocates, when almost all the violence (including arson, murder and bombing) in the abortion debate has come from your side.'
Well, if you don't count the 63 million dead babies...
Harlan James Drake
Look it up, Freder.
Not to mention more than 100 bombings, firebombing and attacks on crisis pregnancy centers over just the last few months.
But yeah. Your side is a pure as the fucking snow when it comes to abortion violence ... especially when you're busy murdering babies at the same time.
I have a friend, gay guy- who opposed gay marriage. I really don’t know why. He accepted his choices were not in the mainstream and moved on.
My daughter had a same sex relationship. I loved her part even though she didn’t appreciate my lifestyle/choices/politics. I would have gone to the wedding, if they had stayed together. Out of love and support- not b/c I believed it was a Union of G*d.
If you read the actual Bill in question, there is much more in there than simply protecting the institution of gay marriage. There is recognition by all states of further changes to marriage by any state. Meaning that if California changes the definition of marriage to include polygamy, animals and/or children, then all states will be required to recognize those marriages. It’s literally the Californication of marriage on a national level. They are also things in the act that would allow government to punish wrong thinking institutions that do not believe in gay marriage, including the Catholic Church. Also including organized Islam, but somehow I’m sure it won’t apply to them. So imagine that all Catholic charities lose their tax status because the church won’t perform gay marriages. Or imagine that a conservative Christian loses his ability to perform any marriages because he won’t perform gay marriages. That is what happened in Canada. That’s what the Democrats want to do down here too.
who were These ignorant idiots?
Seriously, HOW STUPID do you have to be to think Roe would never be overturned?
It's not very nice to call our hostess STUPID.
Blogger Greg The Class Traitor said...
Gusty Winds said...
This is where the GOP is stupid. Why not vote to codify gay marriage at the Federal Level? What's the harm?
because it's a bullshit illegitimate decision by a corrupt Court
I don't know Greg. Love and happiness are the two hardest things in life to find and keep. I wish it for everyone. There are gay couples out there that spend decades together. I don't see the civil harm in letting them legally marry and get some of the benefits...family health insurance, end of life rights and issues...etc. Leave the churches alone of course.
I don't associate gay marriage with abortion or the transgender grooming going on in public schools. As far as political baggage goes for the GOP, they shouldn't punch this tar baby. We have bigger issues. Election fraud. Inflation. Recession. War in Europe with Russia, and China/Tiawan right around the corner, resisting the Green Energy bs, health "emergency" fascism, forced "vaccines"...
The GOP has to get some of these people to vote "America First" to overcome the voter fraud margin the Democrats have baked into the equation.
I know many Black people well (some of them are also gay), and frankly, your claim that you are tuned into the black zeitgeist is just bullshit.
Have you got monkeypox yet, Freder?
You really are an ass.
n.n said...
The bigotry, you say. Civil unions for all consenting adults and differently identified.
No
Society benefits heterosexual monogamous marriage because hmm befits our society.
It benefits by the kids it creates and raises, and it benefits because men who get married to women become much better and more productive citizens.
If there's ever been any valid research showing that same sex "marriages" produce the same benefits for society that real marriages do, I've missed it.
Since academics would LOVE to "prove" that SSM is as good or better than hmm, the complete lack of studies, even really crappy ones, "proving" that is strong evidence that SSM doesn't provide society the benefits.
Which means it's entirely undeserving of the benefits society provides for real marriages.
You want to shack up? Have fun.
You want us to pretend that your "relationship" is important and valuable?
The it actually has to be valuable to us, not just you
Gusty Winds said...
Greg The Class Traitor said...
Gusty Winds said...
This is where the GOP is stupid. Why not vote to codify gay marriage at the Federal Level? What's the harm?
because it's a bullshit illegitimate decision by a corrupt Court
I don't know Greg.
Yes, you do. The Court's decisions were utter garbage pulled out of Kennedy's ass.
you want to make a legislative argument for same sex marriages? Go right ahead.
But until Obergefell and Windsor are repealed, I'm not listening.
Love and happiness are the two hardest things in life to find and keep. I wish it for everyone. There are gay couples out there that spend decades together. I don't see the civil harm in letting them legally marry and get some of the benefits
The harm is that they're getting benefits, without providing society benefits in return.
Where are the studies showing that men in SSMs improve the same way men in real marriages improve? Those studies don't exist?
Then the benefits are not deserved.
Leave the churches alone of course.
Which of course the Dem bill, that you called GOP members "stupid" for opposing, does NOT do.
In fact, it explicitly exempts itself from RFRA.
That alone justifies an NO vote on any Dem supported bill.
Gusty Winds:
Tell it all to Arlene's Flowers. Oh wait, you can't. Because SCOTUS let them be driven out of business for not wanting to do same sex ceremonies.
And you can't get a wedding cake from Masterpiece Cakeshop, because they've been driving out of the Wedding Catering business by the SSM uber alles crowd
So I'm going to take my cue from the Left: when it comes to marriage, tolerance and individual freedom are verboten. Given that, it's time to wipe out SSM
According to this Supreme Court, eEven a 100 year old law limiting concealed carry is apparently not "deeply rooted in this"". Nation's history and tradition."
**********
Freder, how many states had this law, which you refer to as having originated a 100 years ago?
If only one, please explain how one state law out of fifty states establishes "deep roots in OUR NATION's "history and tradition".
You won't.
You never do.
Jupiter said...
What he neglected to mention, in all his talk of parental hopes and dreams, is that no one hopes their kids will turn out to be homosexual.
--
Gay or uber woke parental couples mighth disagree.
“Questions of family law traditionally and properly are decided at the state-government level. I'm not even going to look it up. It's too obvious to spend time on.”
Why are they “properly” decided at the state-government level? Why not county, or city, or zip-code level? Why shouldn’t your family’s legal disputes be decided by your neighborhood association?
This really isn’t hard. Marriage is a contract and a sacrament. As a sacrament it is governed by religious belief and canon law which have NOTHING to do with the State whether federal or state. And as a contract it is governed by state law defining the terms of the deal and the operative (“magic”) words and deeds performed by the parties to make it happen.
In this I see exactly zero room for federal legislation. At the state level I can have opinions —e.g. the etiolation of a good solid word like “marriage” when it is stretched to cover same-sex unions— but they are second-order. The main thing is, this sacrament/agreement does not need to become a vicious battleground mostly for the benefit of posturing egotists. Enough already.
Of course, there’s a stark contrast between the vote and the days-later appearance. “Not for thine, but yet for mine.”
Holdfast: word.
Isn’t that why any adoptions done by Catholic entities stopped?
B/c gay couples weren’t recognized as such or suitable candidates?
I remember when civil unions were a thing in VT. My Mom said that was fine, she could support civil unions- as long as anyone could form a civil union allowing them the benefits in economic, medical and any other specific advantages allowed under the title. It was a business transaction. That’s not what gay couples wanted. It was- but, it wasn’t good enough. It wasn’t deemed equal to marriage. It’s my understanding that committed gay couples wanted the institution of marriage. Just like other couples.
Then they get marriage and it’s still not equal enough. All religions should allow equal marriage or Gay Pride will shit in your church steps, yeh?
Which is sad b/c I wonder, do they realize equal means inherent value? Shared by all- despite our many, many differences? Endowed by the Creator? That’s beyond spiritual…
There’s a Cain complex going on in humanity. I suppose there always has been.
It’s getting worse.
That's something that a guy who takes his alternate name from a Hitler-figure should be familiar with.
You can insult me all you want, but I draw the line at you defaming Fritz Lang. He hated the Nazis and fled to the U.S. because of them.
Have you got monkeypox yet, Freder?
How old are you? 12. This is the level of wit I would expect from a middle-schooler.
Another option for Thompson would be to say he voted in the way that represents his constituents.
He's a Congressman, after all, and his vote isn't his opinion alone. Remember when Obama and Biden pretended to oppose gay marriage because they thought that's what represented the opinion of Americans?
Did anyone at Buzzfeed contact Thompson or his office to ask him what his reasons for opposing the bill were? I'm sure he has discussed it with his son.
Maybe that would have made for a more thoughtful article.
But that would be less fun than "Republican hypocrite!!!"
The Supreme Court is probably counting on lower courts to slap down state laws that go too far, so it won't have to make sweeping decisions that further divide the country. That's what I'd do, and it shouldn't be that hard to get four justices to agree not to hear controversial cases. A lot depends on the lower courts not trying to shake things up themselves.
I have a friend, gay guy- who opposed gay marriage. I really don’t know why. He accepted his choices were not in the mainstream and moved on.
That wasn't so unusual. Elton John felt he could live without gay marriage, before he decided he couldn't. Many older gay people reconciled themselves with their life and its limitations. Then marriage became a political movement and a possibility. The movement gave many something to organize one's life around, and many who hadn't wanted to be married before took advantage of the opportunity.
"He understands that same sex 'marriages' are bullshit, that they do not provide society with the benefits that real marriages do, and that therefore the Federal gov't should not be supporting them."
What benefits are those? How do those benefits not also exist in the case of gay marriages? Why does a legal joining of two people have to provide specific benefits to the state to be permitted? What about providing benefits to the couple?
You say gay marriages are "bullshit" only because you and your ilk here and outside this blog are ignorant bigots who do not like gays and do not like them marrying each other. Rather than hide behind a bullshit statement about gay marriages "not providing society with the benefits that real (sic) marriages do," why don't you provide a concrete list of the harms you imagine gay marriages would present to society?
There is absolutely no valid reason why gay men and women should be barred by the state from being able to legally marry their same-sex loved ones.
I never trust the media's description of what a bill's intent is either, so throw that uncertainty into the anti-hypocritical argument too. For example there is a bill pending in the Senate to do one thing that has been larded up by Chuck Schumer with huge spending on unrelated things in hopes of either getting Republicans to (1) hold their nose and vote for the commonly wanted thing despite the lard or (2) reject the thing for being a monstrosity and enable Chuck to say "Republicans oppose our good and decent bill to do X."
This is why we equally hate DC and the Media that "covers" for them.
Freder Frederson said...
Inter racial marriage is certainly not "“deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” nor “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty”, which apparently is the new standard for protected constitutional rights
Really? Are you trying to claim there were NO "interracial" marriages in America put o and including the 1860s?
Pretty sure they've existed since the beginning of recorded history.
According to this Supreme Court, eEven a 100 year old law limiting concealed carry is apparently not "deeply rooted in this"". Nation's history and tradition."
That's because it isn't.
The 14th Amendment was passed over 140 years ago. A law enacted 40 years after the 14th was ratified tells us absolutely NOTHING about what the ratifiers (meaning the people of America at that time) thought the 14th allowed or didn't allow.
And the fact that for 40 years after the 14th was ratified, and for over 100 years after the US Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified, no State anywhere passed a law like the law you are supporting? A law that they could reasonable have passed if they thought it was a legitimate law? (We're not talking here, after all, about regulation of things that didn't even exist until less than 100 years ago)
That is pretty solid evidence that such laws are not consistent with "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", which after all IS in the US Constitution
"In this I see exactly zero room for federal legislation"
Then get rid of all federal tax policy regarding marriage. But currently the federal government very much is a part of marriage due to taxation benefits to marriage.
Interracial marriage has existed pretty much everywhere pretty much as long as marriage has, and predates the modern concept of "race". Examples from antiquity are innumerable, but in American history it starts with Pocahontas and John Rolfe.
Laws had to be passed to ban interracial marriage because the existing marriage concept had always included it. For example, the Africans brought to the British Isles in the 16th and 17th century intermarried with white people, and so did they in America in colonial times.
But same-sex marriage was never institutionalized in the West before recent times.
Never thought the issue was anything more than "Fine, you can have all the legal standing and benefits that come with marriage, just don't call it 'marriage' call it something different - civil union - because the word marriage is already taken for the union of a man and a woman."
"Never thought the issue was anything more than 'Fine, you can have all the legal standing and benefits that come with marriage, just don't call it 'marriage' call it something different - civil union - because the word marriage is already taken for the union of a man and a woman.'"
This is also a bullshit issue. I don't know your position on this, but I can't understand this fine distinction some want to make by insisting on calling the exact same legal, sexual, and emotional pair bond between gay partners and straight partners either "civil union" or "marriage," respectively. Why play word games?
In both cases, the parents, who are devout Christians, were not happy but have gotten over their sons marrying men and accepted with love their son-in-law. That doesn’t mean that they are now pro-gay marriage.
A lot of people for years have had to deal with "what do I do when my close family member does something which I cannot condone". Not just same-sex marriage. Living together, sharing a room/bed together at a family gathering, having children without being marriage, and so on.
Then again, also with same-sex marriage. What do those with more traditional views do when a child says s/he is gay, gets into a serious relationships, becomes engaged, and (at some point) gets legally married? We care about the child's happiness, can sort of care about the child's companion/partner/spouse, but it's hard to know where to draw the line between care and support on the one hand, and on the other celebrating and endorsing a practice and/or way of ordering social relationships with which we strongly disagree.
My wife and I are having to navigate that situation right now.
Robert Cook said...
Me: "He understands that same sex 'marriages' are bullshit, that they do not provide society with the benefits that real marriages do, and that therefore the Federal gov't should not be supporting them."
What benefits are those? How do those benefits not also exist in the case of gay marriages? Why does a legal joining of two people have to provide specific benefits to the state to be permitted? What about providing benefits to the couple?
It must suck to not be able to read. Since I wrote words like this in multiple places "It benefits by the kids it creates and raises, and it benefits because men who get married to women become much better and more productive citizens."
Which is why male drivers under the age of 25 get a discount if they're married. Because they're safer drivers
Robert Cook said...
You say gay marriages are "bullshit" only because you and your ilk here and outside this blog are ignorant bigots
Says the ignorant buffoon who claims to be totally unaware of decades of sociological research showing that males in heterosexual marriages are much more productive and safer for everyone else (drive safer, commit fewer crimes) than unmarried males.
There is ZERO evidence that same sex "marriages" produce those benefits for society.
Until that's proved, there's no justification for giving them the benefits
Post a Comment