It’s true — I like to cruise through the congressional record. Mind you, I can only do this on an infrequent basis as the general asininity of it is almost more than a mere mortal can digest. What follows are a few nuggets from the Senate Congressional Record of June 6, 2006. I’ve inserted commentary in places where I managed to pull my weakened body and mind out of the deep, dark crevasse that is “The Record.”
The homosexual marriage lobby, as well as the polygamist lobby, shares the goal of essentially breaking down all State-regulated marriage requirements to just one: consent. In doing so, they are paving the way for legal protection of such repugnant practices as: homosexual marriage, unrestricted sexual conduct between adults and children, group marriage, incest, and bestiality. Using this philosophy, activist lawyers and judges are working quickly, State-by-State, through the courts to force same-sex marriage and other practices, such as polygamy, on our country.[…]
We need an amendment that restores and protects our societal definition of marriage, [and] blocks judges from changing that definition.
I have a difficult time putting into words my aversion to the currently popular “we must stop activist judges” adage of which politicians are so very fond. The judicial process is not about what the majority of society (majority in society is in itself at best difficult to determine) feels should happen. God save us if it ever is. Perhaps a lesson in separation of power and the purpose of each branch of government is in order for Senator Inhofe.
I will go to several other countries that have redefined marriage, defined marriage out of existence. In the Netherlands, since proposals for same-sex marriage began to be debated, the out-of-wedlock birthrate has soared. It was a fairly stable country in out-of-wedlock births and was at low rate. […]
What happened to out-of-wedlock birthrates? You can see the situation in the Netherlands, which is particularly important because it was one of the lowest out-of-wedlock birthrate countries in Europe for a number of years, shows that until 1980, below 5 percent of the population was born out of wedlock. When we get the court cases which we have in the United States today saying marriage should be redefined, we see the impact, as well as a Supreme Court case that rules against marriage being the union of a man and a woman. Then we get symbolic marriage registration, registered partnership, same-sex unions, and now we are up to 35 percent as seen in this skyrocketing chart.
If I’m understanding Senator Brownback correctly, he’s attempting to correlate registered partnerships and same-sex unions with the increase of out of wedlock births. Is he kidding? I’m not a senator with a full staff and do not hold an advanced research degree, but even I can see that these are junk “facts” being drawn from non-correlating data. This information, regardless of politics, should be thrown out for its inaccuracy.
I, for one, believe that the institution of marriage and the principles of democracy are too precious to surrender to the whims of a handful of unelected, activist judges. The will of the people should prevail. […]
Can’t. Type. Laughing. Too. Hard.
Before I quit of exhaustion from reading the same tired arguments repeatedly and running the same circle of reasoning over (and over and over), I will conclude this piece.
Editor’s note: It is extremely hard to find consistent permanent URLs within the Congressional Record. I’ve tried to add accurate links where possible, but it’s just not possible in all instances.
6 responses so far ↓
1 Jeff // Jun 15, 2006 at 12:55 pm
http://www.actwin.com/eatonohio/gay/world.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10279366/
I find it embarrassing that South Africa, just 15-16 years removed from apartheid, has forged well ahead of us, the United States, in this civil rights issue. It seems that the people who continue to claim protection of the sanctity of marriage are consistently the types who would marry off their 15 year old pregnant daughter because it’s “the right thing to do.” These proclaimed “activist” judges have largely been appointed or elected by their constituents; though in the case of appointments, republicans hold 28 of the 50 governor’s seats, to include Massachusetts and California, where many of these “activist” decisions have been made. I appreciate how Sen. Allard brought it all into context by claiming that “the principles of democracy are too precious to surrender to the whims of a handful of unelected, activist judges.” These activist judges though, if unelected, were appointed in compliance with the democratic process…oh Senator Allard, I’m so very confused, am I supposed to hate those pesky activist judges, or just a true democracy?
2 Mike // Jun 16, 2006 at 11:02 am
Although it’s clear that Mr. Inhofe has his own agenda, as is evident with his descriptive use of the word “repugnant” to describe homosexual marriage, what he says here is demonstrably true:
“The homosexual marriage lobby, as well as the polygamist lobby, shares the goal of essentially breaking down all State-regulated marriage requirements to just one: consent.” - Senator Inhofe (R-OK)
It’s all but impossible to allow same sex marriage but disallow incestual marriage, polygamy, etc. The only barrier that proponents of redefining marriage recognize is consent. What then if some step forward and demand that they be allowed to marry their sisters or brothers or cats or [fill in the blank]? So long as such marriage would be consensual, can you reasonabily deny them that right? Of course not. For some reason, many either choose not to believe this fact or they simply ignore it.
By the way, I don’t believe the state has any authority whatever to place its stamp of approval on marriages, period. It’s a religious and/or personal issue, not a legal one. But that’s a separate matter …
3 Nicole // Jun 16, 2006 at 12:22 pm
Mike, I must admit I’m not at all following the leap from allowing same sex marriage to allowing incest or bestiality.
4 Mike // Jun 16, 2006 at 2:47 pm
What is the litmus test for the argument *for* same sex marriage? That is, what is the single criterion for why it should be legalized? That criterion is consent. The “pro” argument is that any two people who love each other and hence wish to consent to enter into the binding contract of marriage should be allowed to do so.
Why then if a brother and sister consent to marry, should they be denied the same purported right? How about a man and a woman and another woman and that woman’s adult daughter, et. al.
I’m honestly not trying to be a smart ass. But this is a case where the slippery slope argument is rock solid.
5 Jeff // Jun 17, 2006 at 10:28 am
This slippery slope argument is far from rock solid. If people wish to enter into plural marriage, then it is their personal choice, be it one man with 7 women, or vice versa. It would at least relieve some of the stigma that it is wrong, hopefully preventing situations similar to the one in Colorado City Arizona, where it is a way of life to marry off one’s 13 year old niece to her 53 year old uncle for example. If people were allowed to make educated decisions based on THEIR life and what they think is best for them, it seems much better than a culture that is brainwashed and disassociates themselves for fear of repercussion or outside influence and judgement. Of course there would have to be some government intervention to decide how the tax and other benefits resulting from marriage are distrubuted, but I believe that could all be worked out. As for the situation where someone would be marrying their kin or …pet llama, I just don’t see it being a large scale problem. Nearly everyone educated in some way in America know the repercussions of inter-breeding, and honestly, how many people would really be marrying their pets, or more importantly, how many people would be consumating said marriage? I personally believe that people should be allowed to the greatest extent possible their personal pursuit of happiness. Plural marriage would not be my choice, but who am I to pass judgement on someone who chooses so with a clear mind and direction, provided they are causing no harm to any innocents?
6 Nicole // Jun 17, 2006 at 5:01 pm
As Jeff notes, the slippery slope argument is far from rock solid. “Why, geez, you never know, if we allow heterosexual marriage, what’s next — them homosexuals are gonna want to get married too!”
Okay, to be less of a smart @$$ — I don’t believe the core issue is consent. If it was, even your “rock solid” argument fails.
1) How would bestiality be condoned? Dogs, horses, and llamas can’t give consent. Thus a man and his horse could not be married.
2) How would a 13 year old marry a fifty year old? The thirteen year old is not of the age of consent. Thus no marriage there either.
3) A brother and sister — I say if they are both of age and are okay with the genetic repercussions and the societal stigma, then go for it I guess. Same goes for two cousins of age. Or an uncle and neice of age.
The larger issue is that you’re basically saying that homosexuals and bestiality are but a mere step (or inclined slope as it were) from being the same thing. To me, _that_ comparison is repugnant.
Leave a Comment