Definition of Marriage, According to Republicans

The U.S. House of Representatives debated same-sex marriage again and, as expected, voted in favor of a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. It was a useless vote because the Senate has already rejected the proposal, but it allowed Republicans to posture and pretend that they were defending Chritain values by bashing gays and gay relationships. It was very instructive.

Dana Milbank quotes some of the Republican representatives on how they define marriage:

“It’s part of God’s plan for the future of mankind,” explained Rep. John Carter (R-Tex.).

Rep. Bob Beauprez (R- Colo.) also found “the very hand of God” at work. “We best not be messing with His plan.”

Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) agreed that “it wasn’t our idea, it was God’s.”

“I think God has spoken very clearly on this issue,“ said Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.), a mustachioed gynecologist who served as one of the floor leaders yesterday. When somebody quarreled with this notion, Gingrey replied: “I refer the gentleman to the Holy Scriptures.” [emphasis added]

It must feel very empowering to think that you are doing the Will of God like this. It’s also arrogant and, perhaps more importantly, a violation of these men’s oaths to the Constitution. They don’t have the responsibility or the authority to base decisions on whatever books they happen to believe are “Holy Scriptures” or on what they think is “God’s idea” for the “future of mankind.” Instead, their responsibility and authority are limited to doing what is necessary for the citizens of this country — many of whom either don’t believe in these guys’ god or believe in that god in a very different way.

Basically, these Republicans are attempting to amend the U.S. Constitution according to what they believe are the laws of their god. This is a theocratic, not a democratic, initiative. It happens over and over on the basis of Republican efforts — very few Democrats join along. How, then, does this not mean that the Republican Party is effectively a Theocratic Party?

“Marriage is not about love,” volunteered Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.), who noted his 31 years of matrimony. “It’s about a love that can bear children.” [emphasis added]

I wonder if Todd Akin’s wife is comforted by the fact that his marriage to her is not about loving her except insofar as that love “bears children.” I guess if they couldn’t have children, he wouldn’t love her at all. If Todd Akin really believes what he claims — and let’s be honest, he would have to be an idiot to believe it — then he must also believe that couples which cannot have children or do not desire to have children should not be allowed to marry.

“The world did not start with Adam and Steve,” Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.) told reporters.

Well, the world also did not start with Adam and Eve, contrary to many Christians’ superstitious beliefs. None of that matters, though, because that has no bearing on whether it’s consistent with the constitution or the responsibilities of a liberal democracy to prevent gays from marrying.

Gingrey, the floor leader/gynecologist, posited that the debate was “about values and how this great country represents them to the world.” After the vote, he elaborated: “This is probably the best message we can give to the Middle East in regards to the trouble we are having over there right now.”

So that was it: The marriage debate wasn’t about amending the Constitution; it was about quieting Hezbollah. [emphasis added]

Well, conservatives have often claimed that Muslim extremists hate us because we are free, so it looks like Phil Gingrey’s solution is to ensure that we aren’t any more free than is absolutely necessary. According to Phil Gingrey, we need to send a message to Muslim extremists: and that message is submission to their authoritarian, totalitarian, and repressive demands. Instead of standing up to the extremists and insisting that society be more free and more open, conservative Christians like Phil Gingrey want us to be less free and open.

 

Marriage, Gay & Straight:

• What Is Marriage?
• What's The Point of Marriage, Gay or Straight?
• Marriage: Religious Rite or Civil Right?
• Interracial Marriage: Loving v. Virginia
• What Does the Bible Say About Monogamy, Polygamy?
• History of Marriage (Marriage)
• Benefits of Legalized Marriage (Gay Life)

 

Gay Rights, Gay Marriage, and Religion:

• Does Equality for Gays Threaten Religious Liberty?
• Does Religious Liberty Protect a Right to Treat Gays as Unequal?
• Is Religiously Motivated Discrimination Against Gays OK?
• Evangelical Christianity & Homosexuality
• Catholicism & Homosexuality
• Roman Catholicism on Gay Marriages (Christianity - Catholicism)

 

Gay Rights, Gay Marriage, and the Law:

• Why Ban Gay Marriage?
• Arguments for Gay Marriage
• Equal Rights vs. Special Rights
• Gay Marriage vs. Divorce & Remarriage
• Four Reasons to Support Gay Marriage (Civil Liberties)
• Where Can Gays Legally Marry? (Lesbian Life)
• Civil Unions vs. Gay Marriage (Lesbian Life)
• Civil Unions, Domestic Partnership & Gay Marriage (Gay Life)
• Gay Marriage 101 - Information on Gay Marriage, Civil Unions (Civil Liberties)
• 10 States that Could Legalize Gay Marriage or Civil Unions

  Arguments Against Gay Marriage:

• Gay Couples are Unnatural
• Marriage Between a Man and a Woman: What is a Man? What is a Woman?
• Marriage is for Raising Children
• Gay Marriage Undermines the Institution of Marriage
• Marriage is Sacred and a Sacrament
• Definition of Marriage Can't be Changed for Gay Couples
• Reasons to Ban Gay Marriage (Conservative Politics)