Rep. Lincoln Davis illustrates the hypocrisy of the Gay Marriage Amendment.

The House of Representatives debated the Gay Marriage Amendment yesterday despite the fact that it has no chance of becoming law since the Senate has already rejected it. Just the same it still allowed various (mostly Conservative) politicians a chance to grandstand about the importance of protecting the sanctity of marriage from those nasty gay people who are out to undermine it and the American family. It consisted of a lot of the idiocy we’ve come to expect from the Right on the issue, but there was at least one politician who made a very good point during the debate.

That person was Rep. Lincoln Davis, a Democrat, and he said was against the amendment because it doesn’t go far enough in truly protecting the institution of marriage:

    LINCOLN DAVIS: Marriage is for life, and this amendment needs to include that basic tenant. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think we should expand the scope of the amendment to outlaw divorce in this country. Going further Mr. Speaker, I believe in fidelity. Adultery is an evil that threatens the marriage and the heart of every marriage, which is commitment.

    How can we as a country allow adulterers to go unpunished and continue to make a mockery of marriage? Again by doing so, what lessons are we teaching our children about marriage? I certainly think that it shows we are not serious about protecting the institution and this is why I think the amendment should outlaw adultery and make it a felony. Additionally, Mr. Speaker, we must address spousal abuse and child abuse. Think of how many marriages end in a divorce or permanent separation because one spouse is abusive.

    And, Mr. Speaker, I personally think child abuse may be the most despicable act one can commit. This is why if we are truly serious about protecting marriage to the point we will amend the constitution, we should extend the punishment of abuse to prevent those who do such a hideous act from ever running for an elected position anywhere.

    We should also prevent those who commit adultery, or get a divorce, from running for office. Mr. Speaker, this House must lead by example. If we want those watching on CSPAN to actually believe we are serious about protecting marriage, then we should go after the other major threats to the institution. Not just the threat that homosexuals may some day be allowed to marry in a state other than Massachusetts. An elected official should certainly lead by example.

Emphasis mine. I can imagine there’s a few Conservatives out there (*cough*Daryl*cough*) who would be more than happy with such an amendment, but I doubt even the staunchest Conservatives in Washington are seriously entertaining the idea. I don’t even think Rep. Davis really wants to see such an amendment, but rather is using it to make a solid point on the hypocrisy of politicians who claim to be defending a venerable, but supposedly vulnerable institution.

I’d love to see some Conservatives called out by reporters to respond to Rep. Davis’ proposed expansion of the amendment. The hemming and hawing that’d take place would probably be highly amusing if you can overlook just how pathetic it really is.

20 thoughts on “Rep. Lincoln Davis illustrates the hypocrisy of the Gay Marriage Amendment.

  1. How tongue-in-cheek was he?  Dude has a 72% legislative rating from Christian Coalition (and it’s only 72 because, well, he *is* a Democrat); I wouldn’t assume he doesn’t want to see just that.

    I’d love to see some Conservatives called out by reporters to respond to Rep. Davis’ proposed expansion of the amendment. The hemming and hawing that’d take place would probably be highly amusing if you can overlook just how pathetic it really is.

    “I applaud Rep. Davis’ defense of the marriage of institution, and it’s clear from the headlines and courtrooms today, in a land of unelected activist judges passing laws from the bench, that the most immediate threat to marriage is the homosexual agenda, and it’s clear from what the American people are saying that it is here that we have an obligation to draw a line in the sand to protect marriage, the most important God-given social institution we have …”

    That’s the way I suspect someone would spin it.

  2. I’m just happy to see a politician standing up.  Good for him!

    “I applaud Rep. Davis’ defense of the marriage of institution, and it’s clear from the headlines and courtrooms today, in a land of unelected activist judges passing laws from the bench, that the most immediate threat to marriage is the homosexual agenda, and it’s clear from what the American people are saying that it is here that we have an obligation to draw a line in the sand to protect marriage, the most important God-given social institution we have …

  3. Forgive me (and correct me, please) if I’m wrong, but isn’t the flavor of the constitution mostly of protecting the people from the government and states from each other?  Where does this ban on gay marriage fit in?

    Also, it seems that some people are concerned that failure to ban gay marriage will eventually result in – gasp! – polygamy.  Let’s see…
    Abraham: 2 wives and a concubine
    Jacob: 2 wives, 2 concubines
    David: 4 wives
    Solomon: 300+ wives, 700+ concubines
    … and the only thing the Bible says about this last character is that his wives were too much for him.  Ya think?

  4. Also, it seems that some people are concerned that failure to ban gay marriage will eventually result in – gasp! – polygamy.  Let’s see…
    Abraham: 2 wives and a concubine
    Jacob: 2 wives, 2 concubines
    David: 4 wives
    Solomon: 300+ wives, 700+ concubines

    I have been saying that since the whole thing was first brought up!  Their full of it if they really think that the bible supports one man, one woman marriages.  Ok, it doesn’t give examples of gay marriage, but the polygamy is incredibly obvious.  Maybe they’re not reading the same book that’s readily available to the rest of us?

  5. I would require a one year waiting period between applying for and receiving a marriage license.  I would also require that both parties submit to a criminal, medical, employment, education, and financial background check with the results being presented to each party in private.  Too many people get married for almost any reason except that they’ve actually found a good partner.

    An aquaintance of mine joined the Air Force right out of high school.  He met someone shortly after basic training who subsequently claimed to be pregnant a few months later.  He did what he thought was the right thing by marying her and borrowed his brother’s camper for the honeymoon.  They got into a minor traffic acident where both of them went to the hospital for the treated and released thing.  She checked off not pregnant on the paperwork, which wound up in the brother’s hands because it was his vehicle.  When his mother asked her about the pregnancy, she responded that she’d had a miscarriage in a tone of voice one uses when asked about a lost hair comb.  After I got to know her, it became obvious that she has just about every characteristic I don’t want in a partner.  I usually refer to her as every guy’s worst nightmare.

    The institution of marriage is badly in need of reform.

  6. Mmmm. There were some beautifully stupid extensions added to this whole marriage debate.
    From

    should outlaw adultery and make it a felony

    (reminds me of OT Biblical and Koranic law)

    to

    a one year waiting period between applying for and receiving a marriage license.  I would also require that both parties submit to a criminal, medical, employment, education, and financial background check with the results being presented to each party in private

    One may as well add: both parties need to submit to IQ and EQ tests and Psychological profiling.
    The list of provisos could go on to mandate same religion and colour … … but not sex. LOL

  7. Please tell me that this whole thing was meant to be irony. I haven’t missed something, have I?

    Lets’s see:

    Ban gay marriage

    Ban adultury

    Ban divorce

    Prevent adulterers from running for office

    (Or just persecute them—too bad no one thought of that when Kennedy or Johnson or nearly every other president was in office.)

    While we’re at it, let’s ban lustful looks because you know where that can lead.

    No, wait a minute. We all know that lustful thoughts are exactly the same as committing adultery.

    Let’s ban lustful thoughts too.

    But then, how can we do that when women dress the way they do? This is really bad.

    Let’s get women to wear veils!

    I know! Better still! Let’s institute the Burka! All women should wear the burka to keep men from having lustful thoughts and to prevent people from considering adultery and to protect the institution of marriage.

    NOW we’ve accomplished something!

  8. Shelley: All women should wear the burka to keep men from having lustful thoughts and to prevent people from considering adultery and to protect the institution of marriage.

    LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

    Now you’re just being silly …
    LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

  9. I wish these assholes would just get the fuck over it already. Jesus Christ, this is an issue of discrimination. Whether or not you believe that homosexuality is a choice shouldn’t even be an issue. What they ask is that the federal government deny the normal rights and privileges extended to married couples, not to mention legal standing in the courts, to same-sex couples because of their sexual orientation. Its a privacy and discrimination issue. For fuck’s sake the government isn’t asking church’s to allow these marriages to take place so why the hell is everybody upset??? Here’s a solution, revoke federal funding of churches (non-profits) who discriminate against same-sex couples and be done with it.

  10. This is just one more thing the People thing the Government should be involved in. It is not up to the Government to deside this. It is the Peoples. If one State or City wants to allow this and another doesn’t that is fine.

    If the fed want to do anything, why not make a law. They did that to ban polygamy. It didn’t take an ammendment.

    We are a free people as long as homosexual marrage is not violating someone elses Rights I see no harm in it. Granted it does not support the natural order. But, I don’t see that it violates anyones Rights. So I do not see where the Government should get invovled.

  11. The “natural order?”

    Is like that “natural and artificial flavorings?”

    But those artifical flavorings make oreo cookies taste so good.

    Seriously, though, what what the fuck are you talking about?

  12. If one State or City wants to allow this and another doesn’t that is fine.

    Uh, no, it’s not fine.  Recognition of marriage is included by the full faith and credit law.  The Defense of Marriage Act (which was signed by an impeached Democratic president) exempted marriage between two people of the same sex from the full faith and credit law.  I find the entire post to be insulting and vaguely bigoted.

  13. Again from Georgia

    16-6-2.
    (a) A person commits the offense of sodomy when he or she performs or submits to any sexual act involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another. A person commits the offense of aggravated sodomy when he or she commits sodomy with force and against the will of the other person or when he or she commits sodomy with a person who is less than ten years of age. The fact that the person allegedly sodomized is the spouse of a defendant shall not be a defense to a charge of aggravated sodomy.

    No blow jobs- they’re sodomy (??)

    16-6-15 makes it illegal to ask for a BJ.

    I think that Georgia is feeing a little over defensive- incest includes stepchildren, where the relationship is of course purely legal, not blood.

  14. I think the biggest problem people have with gay marriage is that they have nothing (other than the war) to argue about. They should have thought about gays wanting to get married when the majority of the states lifted their sodomy laws.

    In my mind – as dangerous and scary as a place that is – I believe that the institution of marriage is the life long commitment between two people (reguardless of genders) who will not commit adultry and who will try in making their marriage work. Because, Christ people, marriage is *work*, you can’t just *poof* have a perfect relationship (with children-maybe)with that person forever and ever! Divorce is like abortions to accidental pregnancy (I’m referring to unsafe sex, if say you were raped that’s another story)- an easy way out of a mistake you should have thought through better or better yet – prevented with common sense. The only reason anyone should get a divorce is if you are in a situation of spousal or chld abuse. Whether that is emotional, or physical.

    Davis was probably being sarcastic in a way but he was right, if you’re going to ban one thing ban everything. Even if that takes away rights and freedoms. This whole issue just points out how much of a hipocrisy our ‘free’ country is on some things.

    But that is just my opinion, agreed with or not. So I’ll stop rambling now.

  15. I applaud Rep. Davis’ defense of the marriage of institution, and it’s clear from the headlines and courtrooms today, in a land of unelected activist judges passing laws from the bench, that the most immediate threat to marriage is the homosexual agenda, and it’s clear from what the American people are saying that it is here that we have an obligation to draw a line in the sand to protect marriage, the most important God-given social institution we have …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.