Taking the right’s anti-gay arguments one step further

July 18, 2006

Today’s vote in the House on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage went about as expected; 236 lawmakers voted for it (including 34 Dems), 187 members voted against it (including 27 Republicans). The majority still fell 46 votes short of the two-thirds majority it needed.

But the predictable outcome aside, one lawmaker raised a good idea about this issue today. Conservative Republicans want to use the anti-gay [tag]constitutional amendment[/tag] as proof of being “pro-[tag]family[/tag]”? Rep. [tag]Lincoln Davis[/tag] (D-Tenn.) believes we should put this notion to the test. From today’s House debate on the [tag]Federal Marriage Amendment[/tag]:

“Marriage is for life, and this [tag]amendment[/tag] needs to include that basic tenant. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think we should expand the scope of the amendment to outlaw [tag]divorce[/tag] in this country. Going further Mr. Speaker, I believe in fidelity. Adultery is an evil that threatens the marriage and the heart of every [tag]marriage[/tag], 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 [tag]adultery[/tag] 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.”

I’m going to assume Rep. Davis’ suggestion was tongue-in-cheek and congratulate him on an excellent point.

The right calls their amendment the “[tag]Marriage Protection Act[/tag].” The institution of marriage, they say, is under attack. Its demise, they argue, is not only possible, but would literally end civilization as we know it. This isn’t about hating gays; it’s about protecting marriage at all costs. Got it.

But if it’s not about hating gays, then certainly conservatives would be equally concerned about what straight couples are doing to undermine marriage. If we’re really serious about maintaining the integrity of the institution, then Davis’ idea makes perfect sense. Divorce, adultery, and abuse represent at least as big a threat to marriage as committed gay couples, right?

So why not expand the amendment? Why not outlaw all threats to traditional families?

For years, [tag]conservative[/tag] opposition to gay marriage has been a slippery slope argument. Far-right leaders routinely suggest that if gays are allowed to have legally-recognized relationships, then polygamy and bestiality are right around the corner. The argument has been transparently stupid — polygamy and bestiality are a choice, being gay isn’t — but if the right wants a slippery slope argument, there’s no reason not to give them one.

Kudos to Davis for making that clear on the House floor today.

Important Update: To clarify, I called Rep. Davis’ office this afternoon to clarify whether his point was, in fact, tongue in cheek. As his press secretary explained to me directly, Davis was trying to make a point about the flaws in the amendment — he does not actually believe we should criminalize divorce.

Rep Lincoln Davis’ speech reads like some of the best comments I’ve read here on TCR. Which is great praise, in my mind.

  • It wasn’t tongue in cheek. Davis is from the Zell Miller wing of the Democratic party. He has, according to this site a “pro-family” rating of 72%, according to the Christian Coalition.

    But if there is such a thing as “unintentional satire”, this is a primo example.

  • I would have to add the following amendment to the bill: that celebrities who are 1) drunk and 2) in Las Vegas cannot get married. I wonder if Davis would go for that. I shudder to think that was not satire, but it reads as satire, so I will assume the best and have a happy day.

  • Okay, now I’m scared. His is a self proclaimed Blue-Dog Democrat. He might actually have meant this.

    Which is wonderful, in a way. It’s so nice to watch Republican’ts have to deal with someone actually holier than them 😉

    But really, this is what America is voting to make their representatives?

  • I have been asking why not outlaw heterosexuals living together outside of marriage? To me this is a much bigger threat to the institution of marriage…people may continue to live together without every getting married! (ok – please know my comment is tongue in cheek.)

  • Or, if you take seriously the reasoning of the NY Ct of Appeals and the 8th Circuit last week, perhaps we should outlaw childless marriages? If you haven’t produced or adopted a child after 20 months, your marriage ends by operation of law and you are prohibited from dating each other – you have to go try again with someone else.

  • Hell, if the Ten Commandments are the foundation of our society, we’ve got a LOT of work to do.

    Whoever votes against literally implementing the ten commandments obviously wants to destroy America.

    ////snark.

  • Thank the lord almighty he’s not wanting to end topless Elvis weddings in Vegas. Those are some of the most cherished unions our country has left.

    How about an amendment that divorced people can not hold public jobs, period. That would be great, we could have a bunch of people who hate each other staying together for money, that is a republican dream.

  • “Hell, if the Ten Commandments are the foundation of our society, we’ve got a LOT of work to do.” – racerx

    I particularly like the idea of reducing our economy about 1/7th by outlawing all work on Sundays. Or are they going to be clever and say that Jews can work on Sundays but have to take Friday sunset to Saturday sunset off.

    Of course, how can Republican’ts campaign if they have to “not testify as a false witness against your neighbor”? Their whole election strategy is to tell lies about Democrats. Look at the lies they told about Max Clelland!

  • It wasn’t tongue in cheek. Davis is from the Zell Miller wing of the Democratic party. He has, according to this site a “pro-family” rating of 72%, according to the Christian Coalition.

    Davis isn’t from the liberal wing of the party, but in this case, it was tongue in cheek. See the “important update” I added to the post.

  • I think Davis’ poor press secretary is probably fielding a lot of questions just like this. I just tried calling him/her right now 😉

  • As a gay man in a 30-year monogamous relationship, I’ve long argued that if the wingnuts REALLY wanted to protect marriage, they’d outlaw adultery, divorce, and intergenerational “marriages” between persons more than 30 years apart in age and with significant income differences.

    I call it the “Anti-Trophy-Spouse Amendment.” I’d say “Anti-Trophy-Wife” amendment, but as a liberal I have to be gender inclusive.

    And yes, my tongue is planted FIRMLY in my cheek.

  • Regardless of how flawed Davis thought the amendment was, he still voted for it. I don’t think he’s entirely our friend on this.

    Excellent point, KC.

  • I’m going to assume Rep. Davis’ suggestion was tongue-in-cheek and congratulate him on an excellent point.

    I’m guessing here, but I don’t think he was being tongue in cheek. He’s known to be strongly against gay marriage, according to Wikipedia, and voted for a constitutional ban on same sex marriage in 2004.

    His argument today may be a sincere “fair is fair” revision of opinion, and not an ironic challenge.

  • Davis might be just another schmuck, but either way it would be great political theatre for us to push them to try. Can you even imagine the backlash? Not only would the republican party be destroyed for the next several generations, we’d get rid of a lot of stupid-ass democrats as well.

    Win-win, I say.

    Let’s push them on it. Make ’em put their money where their mouth is, and then let’s see if they still have any constituents behind them.

    Oh, and whatever we do, let’s make sure no adulterers or divorced people can serve in government. We’d clean out a whole mess of them right there. And while we’re at it, can we make them prove they were virgins when they were married?

    Let the inquisition begin!

  • Oh, my gosh, I was so shocked to find out that Lincoln Davis really meant what he said. I mean, I knew he was a right winger sort of a Democrat, but I didn’t think he was this insane.

    I assumed he must be joking, but look at the video. He’s got a straight face on. What kind of lunatic is Lincoln Davis, anyway?

    This guy is an American Taliban, trying to enforce fundamentalist religious edicts with the police.

  • My favorite comment during the House debate today came from I believe Rep. Forbes (R-VA) who said something like: We need to pass this amendment so that states will be able to do what they want regarding marriage. Does the guy know how government works? Would someone remind him that federal trumps state.

    BAC

  • I don’t know, but you may be interested in this:

    In their own words: Homosexuals on Polygamy

    It’s about the response of gays to a recent Advocate article. I think it shows three things: first, the GLBT lobby will not stop until marriage means nothing; second, gay marriage is about winning not about being right; third, they want to parse the definition of marriage into oblivion.

    You make up your own mind.

  • To clarify, I called Rep. Davis’ office this afternoon to clarify whether his point was, in fact, tongue in cheek. As his press secretary explained to me directly, Davis was trying to make a point about the flaws in the amendment — he does not actually believe we should criminalize divorce.

    This doesn’t clarify anything, I think. Did you ask him why he voted for the amendment, despite these “flaws”? What would a better amendment look like to Rep. Davis?

  • Great catch – I’ve been thinking about this very issue for a while. Opposition to gay marriage, without the same opposition to divorce and adultery (two practices that by definition undermine the institute of marriage) indicates that the movement is more anti-gay than pro-nuptial.

    • Comments are closed.