So I was reading Maybe It's Just Me, Wonder Man's blog, and came across the following quote:
It is attributed to Sen. Jim Demint, a blithering idiot from South Carolina. This fool hides behind the protection of his religious fervor to say things which have no basis in fact. First, marriage is a social institution which has been absorbed by both religious and governmental institutions. Both have adapted and manipulated the definition of marriage through the years, mainly in ways to remove money from the pockets of the people, either via licenses and the like, or by charging to have the ceremony.
If, as he believes, government should have no hand in marriage, I could stand behind him putting forth a bill which takes away any tax advantages, rights and privileges the government now offers to married people, across the board, and everyone can pay full-freight. That should help with some of the deficit issues we are now experiencing. As for any attempts to 'redefine' marriage, does he plan to revert to pre-1967 laws, and there will be no interracial marriages allowed. How about the age restrictions on marriage, he for minors being married? Is he in favor of removing restrictions so cousins can marry? And he most certainly would want an end of the Defense of Marriage Act (aka DOMA), since it defined marriage as between one man and one woman. And no state need recognize a marriage from another state, causing all marriage to be local in nature.
Now, he specifically mentions 'federal government' but then just government in general. So, is he OK with state or local governments getting involved with the issue, and is just incapable of making that clear? If so, I would only imagine he would be supportive if some states approved marriage marital definitions other than his own vision, right?
As for what he defines as immoral, he should have a good idea at this point. After all, as a Republican from South Carolina, he had front-row seats for the soap opera that is Governor Mark Sanford's lies, to Sanford's wife, children, and constituency. Certainly he must have come out vocally to support the impeachment of the Governor, right? He didn't? My bad. And he had to take the moral stance to ask fellow Conservative Republican Senator David Vitter (LA) to step down after his relationship with a DC prostitute was made known, right? He didn't? Instead, he and Vitter were the only two Senators to vote against Hilary Clinton's confirmation as Secretary of State? Well, what about the stance he had to take when Republican Senator John Ensign of Nevada was discovered to not only have a longterm affair, but to keep both the mistress and her family not only on his payroll, but also that of the National Republican Party, and authorized 'bonus' payments from his retired parents? He must have a have come out strongly on that one, right? Damn.
Perhaps he is on to something, and the concept of marriage should be maintained by religious institutions run by elderly single men in silk robes, many with jaunty hats. After all, the Catholic Church has done such a great job being the bastion of moral fortitude, haven't they? Well, save the last couple of decades in respect to their handling of the many abuse cases, and perhaps the recent DC situation where the archdiocese announced if a bill they didn't like passed, they would screw with working families, the underprivileged, and orphans, they have been pillars of the community. Or perhaps the evangelicals, under the direction of leaders like Jimmy Swaggart or Jim Baker and his wife Tammy Faye or maybe Ted Haggard, should be in charge of regulating marriage, for aside from a couple of affairs, recreational drug use and outright greed. Or perhaps follow the teachings of Islam, which allows for women to marry only Islamic men, yet men to marry the acceptable faiths of Judaism and Christianity, provided the woman is indeed 'chaste.' In fact, 'chaste' men and women are forbid from marrying the non-chaste. And need we go in to the religious sects who allow [heterosexual] polygamy? So, Senator, which religious practices are you planning to go with? And, once chosen, with the others with other thoughts be rendered illegal?
I am unsure what facts he has to back up the whole 'gays are destroying society' argument. After all, gays have been around for centuries, and yet society still exists. A minority of an estimated 10% or less, the gay community must be some amazing people if they can bring down the other 90%, and yet incapable of spearheading marriage equality in some recent elections. After all, didn't Gov. Sanford's wife say it was the fault of gays that her philandering str8 hubby decided to play hide the Argentine tango with his mistress. She said this as she announced she was filing for divorce. Think she meant it was years fighting against gay rights that caused the karmic end to the marriage? I didn't think so, but thought I'd mention it.
So, has the Senator thought through all the questions above, or is he simply a bullying homophobe, spouting off seemingly grand ideals with the sole purpose of hating on gays? Yeah, that is what I thought, too. I can't tell you how [sarcasm alert] amused I am when someone utilizes one of their civil rights, i.e. speech or the freedom of religion, to try to deny me of mine, because their moral or religion belief obviously supersedes the Constitution and the Bill of Rights [end sarcasm].
Perhaps he would just prefer to rewrite the Declaration of Independence to say 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness' to include the phrase 'unless my faith and it's interpretation of a now-dead language find you unworthy of said equality.'
“Marriage is a religious institution. The federal government has no business redefining what it is. Governments should not be in the business of promoting a behavior that’s proven to be destructive to our society. It would be bothersome to me just personally because I consider it immoral.”
It is attributed to Sen. Jim Demint, a blithering idiot from South Carolina. This fool hides behind the protection of his religious fervor to say things which have no basis in fact. First, marriage is a social institution which has been absorbed by both religious and governmental institutions. Both have adapted and manipulated the definition of marriage through the years, mainly in ways to remove money from the pockets of the people, either via licenses and the like, or by charging to have the ceremony.
If, as he believes, government should have no hand in marriage, I could stand behind him putting forth a bill which takes away any tax advantages, rights and privileges the government now offers to married people, across the board, and everyone can pay full-freight. That should help with some of the deficit issues we are now experiencing. As for any attempts to 'redefine' marriage, does he plan to revert to pre-1967 laws, and there will be no interracial marriages allowed. How about the age restrictions on marriage, he for minors being married? Is he in favor of removing restrictions so cousins can marry? And he most certainly would want an end of the Defense of Marriage Act (aka DOMA), since it defined marriage as between one man and one woman. And no state need recognize a marriage from another state, causing all marriage to be local in nature.
Now, he specifically mentions 'federal government' but then just government in general. So, is he OK with state or local governments getting involved with the issue, and is just incapable of making that clear? If so, I would only imagine he would be supportive if some states approved marriage marital definitions other than his own vision, right?
As for what he defines as immoral, he should have a good idea at this point. After all, as a Republican from South Carolina, he had front-row seats for the soap opera that is Governor Mark Sanford's lies, to Sanford's wife, children, and constituency. Certainly he must have come out vocally to support the impeachment of the Governor, right? He didn't? My bad. And he had to take the moral stance to ask fellow Conservative Republican Senator David Vitter (LA) to step down after his relationship with a DC prostitute was made known, right? He didn't? Instead, he and Vitter were the only two Senators to vote against Hilary Clinton's confirmation as Secretary of State? Well, what about the stance he had to take when Republican Senator John Ensign of Nevada was discovered to not only have a longterm affair, but to keep both the mistress and her family not only on his payroll, but also that of the National Republican Party, and authorized 'bonus' payments from his retired parents? He must have a have come out strongly on that one, right? Damn.
Perhaps he is on to something, and the concept of marriage should be maintained by religious institutions run by elderly single men in silk robes, many with jaunty hats. After all, the Catholic Church has done such a great job being the bastion of moral fortitude, haven't they? Well, save the last couple of decades in respect to their handling of the many abuse cases, and perhaps the recent DC situation where the archdiocese announced if a bill they didn't like passed, they would screw with working families, the underprivileged, and orphans, they have been pillars of the community. Or perhaps the evangelicals, under the direction of leaders like Jimmy Swaggart or Jim Baker and his wife Tammy Faye or maybe Ted Haggard, should be in charge of regulating marriage, for aside from a couple of affairs, recreational drug use and outright greed. Or perhaps follow the teachings of Islam, which allows for women to marry only Islamic men, yet men to marry the acceptable faiths of Judaism and Christianity, provided the woman is indeed 'chaste.' In fact, 'chaste' men and women are forbid from marrying the non-chaste. And need we go in to the religious sects who allow [heterosexual] polygamy? So, Senator, which religious practices are you planning to go with? And, once chosen, with the others with other thoughts be rendered illegal?
I am unsure what facts he has to back up the whole 'gays are destroying society' argument. After all, gays have been around for centuries, and yet society still exists. A minority of an estimated 10% or less, the gay community must be some amazing people if they can bring down the other 90%, and yet incapable of spearheading marriage equality in some recent elections. After all, didn't Gov. Sanford's wife say it was the fault of gays that her philandering str8 hubby decided to play hide the Argentine tango with his mistress. She said this as she announced she was filing for divorce. Think she meant it was years fighting against gay rights that caused the karmic end to the marriage? I didn't think so, but thought I'd mention it.
So, has the Senator thought through all the questions above, or is he simply a bullying homophobe, spouting off seemingly grand ideals with the sole purpose of hating on gays? Yeah, that is what I thought, too. I can't tell you how [sarcasm alert] amused I am when someone utilizes one of their civil rights, i.e. speech or the freedom of religion, to try to deny me of mine, because their moral or religion belief obviously supersedes the Constitution and the Bill of Rights [end sarcasm].
Perhaps he would just prefer to rewrite the Declaration of Independence to say 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness' to include the phrase 'unless my faith and it's interpretation of a now-dead language find you unworthy of said equality.'
Wow!
ReplyDeleteWow!
Howard, that is one fantastic post. I took on DeMint on my blog but you, sir, have done an admirable job of showing what in idiot he truly is.
That, again, is fantastic!
Well done!
Bob, thank you. He just pissed me off. LOL
ReplyDeleteGreat stuff, Howard. I would love to talk politics with you face to face someday
ReplyDeleteBravo, Howard! I applaud you!
ReplyDeleteWell said Howard. This is an example of pandering to the hatred of the weak-minded masses. He is but one terrible man in a Senate filled with terrible men. I wonder, was the ancient Roman Senate like this too?
ReplyDeleteYou go Howard; amazing post! Bit by bit you just ripped him to small, itty bitty pieces, you can now throw in the compost pile. A standing ovation for Howard please!
ReplyDeleteWonder Man, thank you. I'd love to have that conversation.
ReplyDeleteBeth, thank you!
Larry, I suspect it has long been like this, we are just seeing it much more than ever before.
Kyle, thanks!