Obey Calls Marriage Amendment Ridiculous
Kudos to Go Nick Go for catching this one
Obey said, " . . . to put that (marriage amendment) in the Constitution is ridiculous."
Obey said, " . . . to put that (marriage amendment) in the Constitution is ridiculous."
posted by ObeyOut2006 at 9:19 AM
10 Comments:
Good job Go Nick Go. Reid and his campaign are on top of things. I hope he uses this early and often on the campaign trail.
This is a typical Democrat Dodge. He says he believes in traditional marriage but votes against making it the law of the land. A lame attempt to have it both ways. But at the end of the day we see his vote is with the gay activists in DC and San Fran!
Dave Obey is RIDICULOUS.
Why write prejudice and intolerance into the federal constitution? It's a bigoted attempt to rile up Rethug primary voters and a lame one at that.
I particularly like 7:33's comment, "He says he believes in traditional marriage but votes against making it the law of the land." In NO WAY does it follow that if somebody believes in something that one must vote to make it law of the land. Maybe he feels he needs to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. I think that's the American way. I think that's what our constitution is about. It's for protecting even petty peons.
The whole "THREAT OF GAY MARRIAGE" is just a bunch of self-righteous Republicrap.
To the angry dem who has joined our discussion. Mabey you've been in a cave lately but in 9 states that have passed gay marriage bans, 7 of them are under attack by left wingers, and the aclu. If you'd like an example just look last week at Georgia where after 76% of the voters approved a ban, a liberal judge overturned it. I'm sure my post will reduce you to name calling and anger, which would just more the same from our liberal friends.
Angry Lib, let me get this straight. If you believe that Marriage an institution that has survived as a union between one man and one woman for thousands of years should be protected as such you are a bigot. If that follows then you are saying Obey is a bigot for saying he supports it. Or is your hope that he is just lying to people about where he stands and is truely a gay marriage supporter. It's an interesting take, he's either a bigot or a lier. I think your probably right that he supports gay marriage but is just afraid to admit it. He should have the guts to take a stand one way or the other. But instead, he's just a lier.
It's not the "threat of gay marriage" that bothers some of us so much as it is that an unaccountable judiciary will overrule the will of the people in the name of the constitution. What right do they have to do that?
Obey is doing a good job. He is only being critized by some because it is an election year.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
4:18 AM, Why do you think Obey is doing a good job? Whether or not you believe homosexuality is morally right is irrelavant when it comes to the Federal Marriage Amendment. The Federal Marriage Amendment does not prohibit gay couples from civil unions, nor does it prohibit gay couples from making medical decisions as a normal family member would.
It does prohibit one from defining marriage in whatever way one chooses, and then forcing the community to adjust everything it has set up around the traditional definition. What right does anyone have to say that they can decide how to define marriage, and furthermore, that everyone in our society must accept that definition as they have defined it? If four people wish to live a "marriage," are we going to force an insurance provider to extend spousal benefits to all simply because these people have arbitrarily decided that they love each other enough that they want to form a "marriage"?
The reason for the comparison between a homosexual couple and a polygamous marriage, is if we are going to accept one (the homosexual couple) as a marriage, we have no basis for excluding the other (the polygamous marriage), because we have accepted a specific standard for determining the identity of a marriage. That standard says that it is up to the individual person or persons to decide.
Lest anyone point out that these charges can be leveled at the Federal Marriage Amendment proponents, I should point out that there is a history behind the word "marriage," and that we cannot (and should not attempt to) change it. To do that would be to ignore history, and therefore our humanity. There is no history for this new standard by which we determine what marriage is.
Post a Comment
<< Home