The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

Foxfyre wrote:

Freeduck I don't know. Why would anybody be proud to say that there have been divorces and homosexual relationships in their family? There have been both in my family and I have been disappointed in the divorces and neutral on our beloved gay relatives.

So I take it you wouldn't stand up with a picture of your family in front of a bunch of people and claim how proud you are of that then??

I don't think you can make a case for bigotry on one out-of-context statement. I choose not to judge people in such matters.

Cyclo, I don't have Quicktime on my computer here at work. So could you tell me if this was a floor speech? Or was it some comment he made on the sidelines.

Foxfyre, assuming Cyclo's answer to my last question is "yes", his speech will show up in the congressional record soon. If he is sure the quote is accurate and in-context, and you are not, why don't the two of you bet on it? 10:1 maybe, to account for the fact you're not sure? How about it?

And I don't think Cyclop can prove that he is sure either, but I think he really really wants to be.

I already did in an earlier post. I really dislike having to repeat myself when it isn't necessary.

Did he follow up with something like offering that as an explanation that he doesn't have first hand knowledge of the issue or something?

Cyclo, I don't have Quicktime on my computer here at work. So could you tell me if this was a floor speech? Or was it some comment he made on the sidelines.

(Quoting Mr. Inhofe): As you see--maybe this is the most important prop we will have during
the entire debate--my wife and I have been married 47 years. We have 20
kids and grandkids. I am really proud to say in the recorded history of
our family, we have never had a divorce or any kind of a homosexual
relationship. I think maybe I am the wrong one to be doing this, as I
come with such a strong prejudice for strong families.

It's no more than what you did with your 'oh, so ALL Republicans say this?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, let me say this has not
really been my issue. We have been involved in some other things, but
it is one about which I cannot remain silent.
I have to say I am probably the wrong person to talk about the
marriage amendment for a couple of reasons. One reason is I am not a
lawyer--one of the few in this body who is not a lawyer. However, I
have to say sometimes that gives you a better insight into these things
than if you are.
I enjoyed listening to some of the liberal Democrats on the Sunday
shows saying they are for a marriage between a man and woman, yet
immediately starting to back down, backpedal, and think of every reason
in the world. It reminds me a little bit of my English as the national
language amendment that we had a couple of weeks ago. Everyone was
saying they were for it, and then they turned around and thought of
reasons to vote against it. That is what is happening now. What does
that tell you? It tells you the vast majority of people in America want
this amendment.
When they talk about the polling being only 50 percent of the people
in America supporting a constitutional amendment for marriage between a
man and a woman, they normally are talking to people who are very much
for that but think we can do it some other way. They think there is
another way of doing it, that we can do it State by State or we can do
it statutorily. But it doesn't work out that way.
I think, even not being a lawyer, I can see that a State-by-State
approach to gay marriage will be a logical and legal mess that will
force the Federal courts to intervene and require all States to
recognize same-sex marriages.
Apparently, most people do agree that is the problem. I find all of
those who are concerned about the very strong lobby, the homosexual
marriage lobby, as well as the polygamous lobby, that they share the
same goal of essentially breaking down all State-regulated marriage
requirements to just one, and that one is consent. In doing so, they
are paving the way for legal protection of such practices as homosexual
marriage and unrestricted sexual conduct between adults and children,
group marriage, incest, and, you know: If it feels good, do it.
When you look at the history of this country, you can see way back in
the founding days that the marriage institution was one of the very
basic values on which this country was based. Way back in 1878,
Reynolds v. United States, which upheld the constitutionality of
Congress's antipolygamy laws, also recognized that the one-man/one-
woman family structure is a crucial foundational element of the
American democratic society. Thus, there is a compelling governmental
interest in its preservation.
That was 1878. That wasn't just the other day. Yet 3 years ago this
month,

[[Page S5523]]

the U.S. Supreme Court signaled its likely support for same-sex
marriage and possibly polygamy and Federal jurisdiction over the issue
when it struck down the sodomy ban in Lawrence v. Texas. That happened
only 3 years ago this month. The majority opinion extended the reach of
due process in the 14th amendment of the Constitution to protect that.
Then they declared--this is significant--they declared:

[P]ersons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy
for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Scalia stated:

The reasoning leaves on pretty shaky grounds state laws
limiting marriage to opposite sex couples. . . .

That is really much of a concern, when a member of the U.S. Supreme
Court agrees with my interpretation as to what that particular
interpretation meant.
Now we face a serious problem. Looking at the various States, right
now we have 45 States that have passed laws, statutes, or have passed
constitutional amendments to their State constitutions that would do
away with gay marriage. Look at the percentages.
For those people who say less than 50 percent of the people want a
constitutional amendment to protect marriage between a man and a wife,
look at the percentages. In my State of Oklahoma, it is 76 percent of
the people. That is three-fourths of the people. Down in Louisiana, 86
percent of the people said marriage should be between a man and a
woman. This is 45 States out of 50 States. Only 5 States have not had
that type of either statutory change or a constitutional amendment.
When you look at the percentages, it is very true that a very large
percentage of people believe marriage should be between a man and a
woman.
Let me mention something that has not been mentioned quite enough in
this debate. A lot of people are not as emotional about this issue as I
am. For those who are not, if you look at just the numbers, look at
what is going to happen in this country if we follow some of these
countries such as the Scandinavian countries. In those societies, they
have redefined marriage. In Denmark, as well as Norway, where they have
now had same-sex marriages legalized for over a decade, things that are
happening there in terms of the society--it has nothing to do with
emotions.
According to Stanley Kurtz's 2004 article in the Weekly Standard, a
majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock.
Kurtz says:

Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have
unmarried parents.

That is in Denmark.
Not coincidentally, these countries have had something close to full
gay marriage for a decade or more.
Stop and think. What is going to be the result? The result is going
to be very expensive. Many of these kids are going to end up on
welfare, so it goes far beyond just the current emotions. I think my
colleague, Senator Sessions, I believe it was yesterday, said:

If there are not families to raise children, who will raise
them? Who will take the responsibility? It will fall on the
State. Clearly it will become a State responsibility.

I am not sure. I have listened to many of my colleagues, for whom I
have a great deal of respect, talk about some of the ways the language
should be legally changed in one way or another to perhaps accomplish
something or avoid another problem.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. INHOFE. I ask if I could have a minute and a half more?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. Maybe this isn't worded exactly right. But this is the
only show in town. It is the only opportunity that we will have to do
anything. Again, I said maybe I am the wrong person to talk about this.
I was talking to my brother, Buddy Inhofe, down in Texas. He is a Texas
citizen, I say to my friend from Texas over here. He and his wife
Margaret--he is 1 year older than I am--they have been married for 53
years. Every time they have a wedding anniversary, it is just like
getting married again.
As you see--maybe this is the most important prop we will have during
the entire debate--my wife and I have been married 47 years. We have 20
kids and grandkids. I am really proud to say in the recorded history of
our family, we have never had a divorce or any kind of a homosexual
relationship. I think maybe I am the wrong one to be doing this, as I
come with such a strong prejudice for strong families.
When we got married 47 years ago, there were a couple of things that
were said. In Genesis 2:24 it is said:

Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be
joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

Matthew 19 says:

Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning
made them male and female, and for this reason a man shall
leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and
the two shall become one flesh? So then, they are no longer
two but one flesh. . . .

I can assure you that these 20 kids and grandkids are very proud and
very thankful that today, 47 years later, Kay and I believed in Matthew
19:4, that a marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Thank you for the additional time.