McGentrix wrote:Full text of what he said from Set's link:
Quote: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.
How diplomatic of this politician. His notes there other issues that ought to be addressed (in truth, pressing issues, and writing bigotry into our Constitution is not one of those pressing matters), but so long as this issue was orchestrated to sit on the Senate table at this time to placate the extremists in order for Republicans to pander for their votes in the upcoming election--Inhofe relishes the opportunity to pander.
Quote:
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.
Humility and Inhumility at its best.
Inhofe was elected to Congress--the lawmaking body of the federal government. Why is he the wrong person to discuss a constitutional amendment simply because he's NOT a lawyer? He's supposed to do his job. If he feels he's not qualified to do his job--if he's probably the wrong person--he should resign.
He said he was probably the WRONG person for a COUPLE of reasons. He states the FIRST reason . . . but what is the second reason? He doesn't say. I guess that second reason is a secret.
BUT OH . . . he's NOT REALLY probably the wrong person to address this issue after all. In fact, because he's NOT a lawyer, he may actually have BETTER insight into this issue than most of the members of the Senate who are lawyers.
Now, because he may have this BETTER insight than most of the other senators, his voice may have to carry greater weight.
(Where did this moron come from?)
Quote: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.
I'm FOR marriage between a man and a woman too! GOSH. Why does one have to be AGAINST marriage between a man and a woman in order to be FOR marriage between gay people. Why should this be an either or choice?
I'm FOR marriage between two consenting adults who love each other and want to enter into a state-sanctioned committed relationship.
Inhofe's accusation that "Liberal Democrats" are backpeddling on their support of marriage has no foundation. There is no requirement that people must agree to discriminate against gays in order to support the institution of marriage.
Quote:
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.
The majority of people once favored discrimination against blacks and prohibited interracial marriages between blacks and whites. The issue was fought out in the states for decades. After the majority of the states repealed their anti-miscegenation statutes, the United States Supreme Court finally ruled that a state statute that prevented marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. LOVING v. VIRGINIA, 388 U.S. 1 (1967).
In the same manner that the issue of interracial marriages was fought out in the states--until such time as the issue virtually died a natural death through attrition and only 16 states still had anti-miscengenation statutes on their books--many Americans (especially the politicians) want the gay-marriage issue to be fought out in the states.
BUT, Inhofe doesn't want the issue to be fought out in the states. He says it won't work out that way. Here's his reason for desiring to write bigotry into our Constitution:
Quote: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.
Now we have it. We have identified the problem. Gay couples who are denied the fundamental right to marry the person of their choice, like interracial couples before them, will exercise their constitutionally-secured right to petition our courts for redress of their grievances. Gay couples will argue that state-imposed discrimination against them violates the the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
HOLY CRAP! Just like the Supreme Court ruled that anti-miscegenation statutes were unconstitutional, our federal courts will be forced to exercise the power granted to them--to decide cases and controversies arising under the Constitution--and rule that anti-gay marriage laws unconstitutionally discriminate against gays!
Oh no! We can't live with that!
Quote:
Apparently, most people do agree that is the problem.
The problem is that our courts may actually do their assigned job within our constitutional republic. BIG PROBLEM. We need to circumvent the Courts people!
If we want to enforce bigotry and prejudice against gays, we need to write bigotry and prejudice into our Constitution.
Quote: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.
Oh my GOD NO! We can't open the floodgates! If state-imposed barriers that prevent gays to marry the person of their choice are eliminated---that means we'll be a country infested with INCEST, unrestricted SEX between adults and children, and GROUP marriage. OH THE HORROR!
Where did this moron come from again?
Is there any proof that state-imposed discrimination against gays somehow prevents a heterosexual male from molesting a child? What does the molester think when he contemplates his crime? Because my state discriminates against gays, I will stop myself from raping that child. . . .
For a country that USED to pride itself on reasoned debate, Inhofe's irrational floodgates argument is embarrassing. It's a red herring. The issue of gay marriage is not a matter of "if it feels good, do it," the same as heterosexual marriage in not a matter of "if it feels good, do it."
Inhofe's statement that equates gay marriage with incest, child molestation/rape, and polygamy (all things bad/sinful/criminal) amply demonstrates his ignorance and his bigotry/prejudice against gays.
Quote: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.
The issue of gay marriage is not the same as the issue of polygamy. NEVERTHELESS, Inhofe misrepresented the Supreme Court case. The case clearly states it is within the legitimate scope of the power of every civil government to determine whether polygamy or monogamy shall be allowed. The court held that the constitutional guaranty of religious freedom was not intended to prohibit legislation that criminalized bigamy.
In Reynolds v. United States,
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/98/145.html, the defendant was charged with bigamy in violation of the territorial laws of the United States:
'Every person having a husband or wife living, who marries another, whether married or single, in a Territory, or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, is guilty of bigamy, and shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500, and by imprisonment for a term of not more than five years.'
Reynolds defended against the charge of bigamy by claiming free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment. The issue in the case was whether religious belief can be accepted as a justification of an overt act made criminal by the law of the land. Here's what the court said:
From that day to this we think it may safely be said there never has been a time in any State of the Union when polygamy has not been an offence against society, cognizable by the civil courts and punishable with more or less severity. In the face of all this evidence, it is impossible to believe that the constitutional guaranty of religious freedom was intended to prohibit legislation in respect to this most important feature of social life. Marriage, while from its very nature a sacred obligation, is nevertheless, in most civilized nations, a civil contract, and usually regulated by law. Upon it society may be said to be built, and out of its fruits spring social relations and social obligations and duties, with which government is necessarily required to deal. In fact, according as monogamous or polygamous marriages are allowed, do we find the principles on which the government of the people, to a greater or less extent, rests. . . .there cannot be a doubt that, unless restricted by some form of constitution, it is within the legitimate scope of the power of every civil government to determine whether polygamy or monogamy shall be the law of social life under its dominion. . . .
In our opinion, the statute immediately under consideration is within the legislative power of Congress. . . . Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice?
Accordingly, Inhofe's red herring argument that gay marriage will open the floodgates to (gasp, oh no!) polygamy was refuted by his own citation to the Reynolds' case. If our society doesn't want to allow multiple marriages, it is not required to do so. Additionally, the Supreme Court made it clear, although some believe marriage is sacred, it's truly not a sacred or religious institution. Marriage is a civil contract regulated by law. The court noted that it may be said that society is built upon this civil contract because our social relations, duties, and obligations flow from this civil contract.
Inhofe clearly misrepresented the Reynolds case when he claimed it established a compelling governmental interest in preserving HETEROSEXUAL marriages. It does no such thing. So long as marriage is a civil contract regulated by law, the government has no compelling interest in denying gay couples the same right to have their social relations, duties, and obligations regulated in the same manner as heterosexual couples have their social relations, duties, and obligations regulated by getting married.
Quote:That was 1878. That wasn't just the other day. Yet 3 years ago this month, 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.
OMG NO! The Supreme Court recognized the freedom/right/liberty of two consenting adults to engage in sexual intimacy in the privacy of their own home without fear that the state will intrude into that privacy and throw them in jail? OH no! Tell me it ain't so. That horrible court is protecting the liberty interests of this nation's despicable homosexuals--of all people! What has become of this country?
Freedom for homosexuals from government oppression?
How could anyone think that Inhofe might be ignorant, bigoted, and prejudiced?
Quote:
In his dissenting opinion, Justice Scalia stated:
The reasoning leaves on pretty shaky grounds state laws
limiting marriage to opposite sex couples. . . .
I agree. There is no compelling, important, or legitimate reason for a state to discriminate against same sex couples.
Quote:
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.
What interpretation is that, Inhofe? That the Constitution protects homosexuals from government oppression? That the Constitution guarantees homosexuals equal protection under the laws? That the Constitution does not allow the majority of people to impose their prejudiced, bigoted beliefs on everyone through the operation of our laws?
The fact that it CONCERNS Inhofe that the Constitution protects homosexuals to the point where he insists that the Constitution be amended so that it won't protect homosexuals clearly demonstrates that Inhofe is ignorant, bigoted, and prejudiced against homosexuals.
Quote:
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.
We have a big problem, because (as just noted) the court ruled that the Constitution, as it is currently written, does NOT ALLOW the majority of the people to impose their bigotry and prejudices on the rest of the people through the operation of the laws.
Because we don't have ANY OTHER REASON--no legitimate reason for banning gay marriages that would withstand judicial scrutiny--that means the bigotted and prejudiced people in this country have a big problem.
What's the solution? We must write bigotry into our constitution to make it legally acceptable.
Quote: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.
OMG NO! We have to get emotional now? We can't have a reasoned debate? Okay . . . have it your way, Inhofe . . . tell us what is going to happen in this country if GAY MARRIAGE is legalized.
Quote: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.
What? Gay marriage makes heterosexual couples have children out of wedlock? How so?
I'm an American. I had a child out-of-wedlock back in the early 1980's. GASP. Gay marriage was not legal in any state at that time---so, if gay marriage didn't make me have that child out of wedlock--what did?
There are millions of children in this country who are born out of wedlock. The gays have nothing to do with that statistic.
Can someone here explain how gay marriage causes children to be born out of wedlock?
Quote:
Not coincidentally, these countries have had something close to full
gay marriage for a decade or more.
Again. Inhofe claims it is not a coincident. He clearly blames gay marriage for causing children to be born out of wedlock.
How do married gay people cause unmarried heterosexuals to have babies?
Oh yes. Like Inhofe, I'm very emotional over this mysterious cause-effect phenomena.
Quote:
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.
Gay marriage causes unmarried heterosexual couples to have welfare babies who are deprived of families and need to raised by the state?
Is this man for real? I think he's on drugs.
Quote: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.
Nothing this man has said makes any sense.
Quote: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.
Congratulations to Buddy Inhofe for his long-standing marriage of 53 years. That is quite an accomplishment in a country where half of all (heterosexual) marriages end in divorce. Obviously, the existence of gay couples and the decriminalization of sodomy between consenting adults did not cause Buddy Inhofe's marriage to fall apart.
Quote: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.
The most important prop we have in this entire debate is a picture of Inhofe's self-proclaimed ideal American family? No kids born out of wedlock? Why didn't the gay marriages in Denmark or Massachusetts cause you or your children or grandchildren to have babies born out of wedlock---with no family to support them?
He's proud of his family. No divorces. (Does gay marriage cause couples in heterosexual marriages to get divorced?) No recorded history of any kind of a homosexual relationship. WHY IS THAT SOMETHING TO BE PROUD OF?
What is the definition of a STRONG FAMILY? No divorce? No recorded history of any kind of a homosexual relationship?
I guess if someone in his family was divorced or if he had a gay son or a lesbian daughter (like VP Cheney), he would be ashamed. He would be forced to present a picture of his family as an example of what American families should NOT look like. A picture of humilation and a weak family. Of course, he would blame the gays for causing a deterioration in society that led to the downfall of his tarnished family.
What a fricken jerk. Our only consolation is that he's OLD.
Soon, most of the prejudiced jerks will die of old age. Hopefully, they'll die off before they rewrite our Constitution.
Quote: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.
If the Bible was the law of the land, perhaps his recitation of bible verses would be relevant to the debate. But it's not. Inhofe, in his foolishness, forgot about the First Amendment and separation of church and state.
Inasmuch as Senator Inhofe and his wife hold the religious belief based on Matthew 19:4 that marriage should be between a man and a woman---they should stay married to each other for religious reasons. If they get divorced, they shouldn't remarry a person of the same sex. That should be easy enough for him to figure out without having to rewrite the constitution.
But, Inhofe should not impose his religious beliefs on the rest of us. As a U.S. Senator, he's a disgrace.
