Honest Absurdity

Via ThinkProgress, here are Rep. Lincoln Davis’s (D -TN) remarks during today’s debate over whether to protect the sanctity of marriage by amending the constitution so as to prevent gay marriage:

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.

ThinkProgress also reports:

There are currently at least 29 divorced members of Congress. There is no official data on how many members have committed adultery.

Lincoln Davis is almost as cool as this guy:

Ohio State Senator Robert Hagan has introduced a bill to bar Republicans from adopting children or becoming foster parents, since as he argues:

“[C]redible research” shows that adopted children raised in Republican households are more at risk for developing “emotional problems, social stigmas, inflated egos, and alarming lack of tolerance for others they deem different than themselves and an air of overconfidence to mask their insecurities.”

Hagan admits that he has no scientific evidence to support the above claims, but then he notes, neither do those who argue gays are a threat as parents.

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: National Politics

11 Comments on “Honest Absurdity”

  1. Momoaizo Says:

    GOOD SPEECH! Sorta reminds me of another speech something about the first person without sin could throw the first stone….BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

    Keep it up DEMS!!!!

  2. J. Clifford Says:

    Thanks for putting this news up.

    It certainly is a confusing thing to evaluate whether Lincoln Davis was serious, because although he is a Democrat, he has a nasty right wing voting record, and so it is plausible that he might come out in favor of a ban on adultery and divorce.

    Apparently, someone checked with his congressional office, and he was being sarcastic, but it’s really hard to tell. I posted the movie on my web site so people can have a look for themselves:

    http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2006/07/18/lincoln-davis-insane/

    Next time Lincoln Davis decides to be tongue-in-cheek, he ought to be a little bit more plain. When he pulls the right wing lunatic act, his constituents just might take him seriously.

    On second thought, maybe he knows that. Is he trying to have it both ways?


  3. […] Wheeler at Alablawg highlights a speech by Rep. Lincoln Davis (D-TN) pointing out the hypocrisy of the proposed amendment. 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. […]

  4. J. Clifford Says:

    Wait a minute. I need to correct myself. Lincoln Davis was being SERIOUS. He voted FOR this wacko extremist gay-bashing Republican anti-marriage amendment to the Constitution.

    Lincoln Davis really meant it when he said that divorce should be a felony. Catch that – not just any old crime, but the kind where you can’t vote any more in most states if you’re convicted.

    This guy is no Democrat. He would qualify for membership in the Taliban, enforcing fundamentalist religious edicts with police power, throwing people in jail for not obeying the Bible.

    He is really off the deep end. I’m shocked. I’m actually shocked.

  5. wheeler Says:

    no freakin way! no one could be that insane!

  6. Humpty Dumpty Says:

    So attempting to preserve marriage, as it has been known from the beginning of civilization, between man and woman, is ‘gay bashing’ and ‘wacko’?

    Of course, that does not merit any further response.

    As far as the republicans not doing ‘anything else’ for marriage, this is again a meaningless excuse. There is nothing much else to be done at the federal level; other than banning divorce, like Italy once did, which of course would offend you on the left-wing even more. What would you like them to do? The gay power groups have sued in every jurisdiction until they could find a judge left wing enough to buy into their phony civil-rights claims. They have subverted the judicial system for their own ends, and an Amendment is the only solution.

    I’m not sure what ‘Taliban’ has to do with this. There is simply no comparison.

  7. wheeler Says:

    humpty,

    there is absolutely no relationship between the health of my marriage and the extenstion of marital benefits to the gay couple who live across the street from me. banning gay marriage does not in any way, shape, or form “preserve traditional marriage.” it just exludes, for no rational reason, certain people from that institution.

    what would i like them to do? leave private decisions (divorce/marriage) to private parties. or at least leave them to individual states. do you think it is a good idea for the federal government to overrule the divorce laws of every state in the country? i thought federalism was a ‘righty’ principle?

  8. Jen Says:

    Humpty,
    Oh, but there is a comparison between Davis and the Taliban. As J. Clifford stated, the Taliban is a fundamentalist regime that believes in persecuting people who disagree with their personal beliefs. The last time I checked, America is not a fundamentalist regime – we’re a representative democracy housing an incredible range of different beliefs, religions, and yes, sexual orientations. We, as a country, never promised one group sovereignty.

    If we allowed one group in America who believes that homosexuality and divorce is wrong to be able to enforce these beliefs on the rest of Americans – that would completely go against our heritage as Americans who believe in Constitutional rights and privileges for all people.

  9. wheeler Says:

    jen, humpty,

    if getting a divorce or being gay was a felony, the difference between us and the taliban would be one of degree. of course no-one would get beheaded for those crimes, but they would be punished. just not as much as they would for the same crimes in afghanistan. so we are like them, but not exactly like them.

    if, otoh, it is legal to be gay and legal to get divorced then we are not at all like the taliban. the difference is one of kind. we, unlike them, allow people to follow their own conscience on personal matters.


  10. […] Second, I have no idea whether or not he was serious when he proposednot just a constitutional amendment barring gays from marriage, but also making divorce illegal, adultery a felony and prohibiting divorcees and adulterers from serving in congress. […]

  11. Humpty Dumpty Says:

    Other person:

    Your comparison of not letting men marry each other to the Taliban is absurd. You are comparing an unelected regimine’s enforcement of primative Sharia law to the democratic process of having some qualifications on marriage, such as only between men and women? They are completely different.

    Your assertion that we are ‘democracy’ and therefore must allow all groups the freedom to whatever they want is again, absurd. The majority has some right to keep society within bounds of acceptable behavior. There is no right to practice polygamy; or bestiality (you cannot marry an animal still, right?) The rights of polygamists, sodomites, etc, are not boundless and do not include the right for state recognition of their union.

    The Taliban would have executed sodomites for their status. But in the US, there is complete freedom for such relationships. Of course, that isn’t enough–instead, the ‘gay’ lobby wishes to force everyone to recognize them through legal marriage.

    I wonder if you lefties are capable at all of comprehending that every ‘right’ has a counterveiling right as well, which must be balanced against each other.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: