Gay Marriage Redux

|

When Congress gets back to DC, reports The Cincinnati Enquirer, it's going to work double-hard to keep gay people from getting hitched:

After escaping August's heat for its annual recess, Congress is set to dive into one of the most sizzling of hot-button issues: gay marriage.

The House and Senate both plan hearings; White House lawyers are studying how to keep legal marriage strictly between a man and a woman.

A constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage is picking up increasing support…

Read the whole story here.

Way to go, fellers. That's keeping the priorities, er, prioritized. It's not like there's nothing else worth spending time.

Advertisement

NEXT: Historical Blackout

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I’m not real hot about the gay marriage business one way or the other, but it would be nice if congress spent the next year or so with heated debates and arguments on the topic. Maybe they could whip up a couple of filibusters. Anything to keep them occupied through the next election season that does NOT involve creating a huge new drug entitlement program.

    Really, gay marriage is the perfect thing for them to invest time in, as there is little danger of them doing anything really substantially injurious to the public good on this topic. Either we get gay marriage, or some civil union, or not. Not that big a deal for the whole country one way or the other. If they’re busy debating the coming out of Ren & Stimpy, they won’t be raising taxes or spending us a trillion dollars more into debt and destroying the pharmaceutical industry.

  2. I strongly favor allowing gay marriage. Hell, I strongly favor allowing polygamy; whatever people want to do is their own business. BUT:

    You guys do remember that our government consists, in theory at least, of democratically-elected representatives accountable to the will of the people, right? And you are perhaps aware that, on balance, America’s population is strongly ANTI-gay-marriage?

    So what, exactly, is so shocking that the elected representatives are trying to prevent gay marriage from becoming legally recognized? Sure, there’s a federalist argument that says this is purely a state matter, but the truth is that it can’t be — marriage carries too many federal-level rights and privledges for the feds to stay out of the discussion.

    As for the argument that this proves the war in terrorism must be over… that sounds a lot like the complaint of a drunken driver. “Don’t you cops have any murderers or robbers to catch?”. The government is capable of doing more than one thing at a time, and I don’t think that blabby right-wing Congressmen will be a greatly-missed resource in the war.

  3. Dan:

    I would have to say that your anaology to the drunk driver is weak. Driving under the influence can endager the lives of others, a gay couple getting married does not. It is more like the pornographer being busted and saying that line, whose statement I would think has merit.

    My point was not that the politicians should babysit the military, but that they should take action to better improve the lives of Americans instead of dilly dally on bullshit issues of marality. For example, they should discuss how to stimulate jobs, boost the economy, minimize our dependence on middle east oil, improve our quality of life, prevent future blackouts, make our homeland more secure without treading on the rights of US citizens, etc.

    While the people of the US should, and do, have a voice in US government, it is the responsibility of our leaders to keep us focused on issues of highest priority instead of just who the mob wants to lynch today.

  4. Considering that Washington is now allocating resources to fight pornographers and homosexuals, we can conclude one of 2 things. Either the war on terror is over and we can all rejoice, or the bigots in DC consider pornographers and homosexuals as much of a threat to the US as terrorists.

  5. Brady may be on to something. I mean, does Rick Santorum think homosexuals cause more damage in the United States than terrorists? There’s an actual chance he does. My head hurts.

  6. Don’t you know?: sinners in our midst are responsible for floods, draughts, and other natural disasters like black-outs. They also cause the Lord to at least partially withdraw his shield of protection from our nation.

    This simple cause-and-effect relationship that any idiot can understand means that these so-called “private” activities are actually public menaces, and so should be restricted by the government, even if you believe in a minimalist government that only protects property rights, contracts, and national defence.

    It’s simple.

  7. It done been documentated by Pat Robertson that that hurricane hit Florida because of gay days at Disney World. (or is it Land?) They’re a threat to the Homeland! We have to act!

    Maybe they could combine this with the flag burning amendment for a double dose of constitutional silliness.

    Plus, if this is the biggest priority for DC, that has to mean the War on Terror is over. Yay! We’re number one! I guess they’ll get around to charging Padilla with something now, right? We can repeal the Patriot Act too, right? It’s not necessary anymore.

  8. I don’t want to presume (because that would make a “Prez” out of “U” and “me”, and only the Supreme Court could do that), dude, but I detect a note of nuance-y “irony” in your posting. Sure you’re not an Enemy Combatant (as defined in the Constitution) yet?

  9. Irony = first step towards treasonous thoughts.

  10. Not yet. That I know of. Although I do wonder what those two generic vans with dark windows are doing parked outside my apartment this morning. . .

  11. How right you are:

    The steps to treason (coming to a courthouse wall near you):
    1.) Irony
    2.) Briory
    3.) Buggery
    4.) Mopery
    5.) Dopery
    6.) Popery
    7.) Gropery
    8.) Sodomy
    9.) Clymery
    10.) “Am?lie”

    Notice the absence of “simony”, since it’s soon expected to be a major revenue stream.

  12. Here’s a little syllogism:

    Al Qaeda hates gays.

    America has a lot of gays.

    Al Qaeda attacked America.

    Therefore, the gays must be the reason Al Qaeda attacked us. Their “private, consensual acts” aren’t so private when they’re causing terrorists to strike! For the sake of Fatherland Security…um, I mean, Homeland Security, the 5 gay guys giving out makeovers must be reined in!

  13. Thoreau, watch that irony! It’s a slippery slope to treason.

  14. Hey, here’s an idea. If our government can’t handle the gay marriage debate because the war’s on, then let’s postpone the debate. But don’t insist that one side disarm while the other side proceeds.

  15. Hey I’m all for gay marriage. Right now in the People’s Republic of California, the legislature seems to fall over itself to give gay unions all the BENEFITS of the union without any of the DEBITS. At least if we instituted gay marriage, those that availed themselves of it would get to know the wonderful world of divorce court and life-time spousal support for long-term relationships (over 10 years) should they decide to end the marriage. Marriage is not all sweetness and light, as those of us who have been through a divorce can tell you.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.