Monday, November 7, 2011

The Indefensible Defense of Marriage Act: The Ultimate Religionist Hypocrisy




Back in 1996 Bill Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act. It says that the federal government does not recognize same sex marriages, even if the states pass laws permitting them. So in the eyes of the Federal government, gays legally married in MA, or NH, or any state where permitted by law, are not in fact legally married. The law still stands.

No surprise that this law was pushed by the GOP. It was introduced by Bob Barr, R-Georgia (above left), who himself was divorced in 1985, accused of infidelity. The GOP loves meddling into peoples’ personal lives and genitalia. What is a surprise is that law passed the House 342 to 67...with half the votes of Democrats being in favor of the law, while only one Republican voted “no”. It passed and the Senate 85 to 14, again almost half the Dems voted yes, while 100% of Republicans voted yes.

Worst of all, President Bill Clinton signed it into law. Of all the Democratic presidents, Clinton should be the last one to get involved with “defending” marriage. After all, it’s not like his marriage is anything more than a sham and marriage of convenience to begin with.

Naturally the God-fearing GOP and their clergy supporters invoked the name of God, warning of his being offended; immorality; the impact homosexual marriage has on diminishing and destroying the blessed institution of hetero-sexual marriage; and all of the insipid, mindless and silly rhetoric one has come to expect from the defacto Party Of God and Hate.

Divorce between men and women in the US hovers around 50%, it has for many years. In the Bible Belt divorce rates are the highest in the nation*. Along with Barr, Newt Gingrich (above right) pushed this act. He is famous for his having dumped his wife of many years for a new girl friend while his wife was undergoing breast cancer treatment. The numbers of married Republicans (and Dems) who have cheated on or divorced is legion, too long to be recapped here. Let it just be said that besides Bill Clinton, many of our elected officials who signed that grotesque piece of legislation have strayed, been exposed, shamed, and/ or filed for divorce - self righteous God believers all.

One can only wonder how allowing gays to marry could undermine the institution of marriage or cause marriages to dissolve any worse than they already do; or somehow encourage straights not to marry. And exactly why does the government care about marriage to begin with? How it is governmental business as to who gets married, who gets divorced, who is living together, who is celibate, and whose genitalia is going where among consenting adults defies explanation. It certainly isn’t constitutionally directed.

And exactly WHOSE marriage needs “defense,” much less defense by a bunch of mealy mouthed two faced religionist hypocrites whose instances of sexual misconduct and infidelity is rivaled only by the President of Italy, Catholic priests, and Baptist youth ministers?. I challenge anyone to find a single married couple who will confirm that the Defense of Marriage act either encouraged them to marry, or saved their marriage. Not one will be able to point to a family member, friend, associate or acquaintance whose marriage was encouraged, or divorce forestalled by this Act of Congress. Similarly, I’ll venture that you’ll never find any intellectually honest and sane person who can reasonably explain and support how gay’s getting married has or will destroy their or anyone else’s heterosexual union.

How do I know this? Simple; I asked Mrs. Hump if she feels our marriage of forty-one years needs governmentally directed defense, and if she has any inclination to divorce me if the Defense of Marriage Act is ever over turned. She told me that even with my sagging hump and hideously annoying camelus dromedarius disposition she’ll always be my wife... then told me I’m an idiot for asking and to go fix my own dinner for asking such a question.

Ah, the institution of marriage! Why should heteros be the only ones to be institutionalized and given the opportunity to divorce?




20 comments:

NewEnglandBob said...

There are many people who claim there is no religious test to run for office in the US, but there must be a test that one has to be a hypocrite and a backstabbing asshole liar. The congress people are the worst of the bunch.

David said...

I asked the same question how homosexual marriage will diminish heterosexual unions and luckily a god fearing gay hating Christian was there to answer the question for me. You see, if gay people are allowed to marry, then this religionist imbecile was concerned that every time she mentioned to a new acquaintance that she was married, there may be a misunderstanding that she was married to another woman. Her heterosexual marriage would be diminished because whenever she mentioned her marriage there would not be an automatic implication that her marriage is heterosexual.

Perish the thought that she might actually in some small way experience what it may be like for gay people living in a heterosexist world.

Anonymous said...

Jon Stewart put it the best. 50% of marriages that end in divorce don't end in gay. Awesome-sauce.

Helga said...

This is a total puzzler to me too! Remember dear old saintly mother theresa who said: "The greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion"...Why are the religious right so VERY concerned at same-sex marriage and abortions 'destroying the fabric of society'? It's all too perverse. The catholics, rich, interfering, twisted as they are, and sex-besotted evangelists have put so much effort into damming gay marriage and abortions...nobody in Europe gives a flying damn what they say, but why do they continue interfering with as you say, Hump, people's private life and genitals?? Can anybody tell me why this is such a hot issue, especially with the republican party, which preaches less government? My conclusions are: a) too many boomers/oldies and not enough babies being born in the West to support the current welfare/health/social/tax system. b) More nice little christian babies needed to fight the growing global islamic threat or c) More capitalist consumers in general needed by more corporations to spend more money to make rich richer. If any readers have any other slant, please let me know...but please, don't tell me it's these moralists' conscience, because as we all know, that's just not possible. No conscience and no brains.

gristleoflife said...

Turns out the only republican to vote "no" on DOMA was Steve Gunderson.
Why? He was gay. Got a lot of respect for this guy to be only one to vote against his party.

The sad and despicable part of all this is that in 1994, Gunderson was outed as gay ON THE HOUSE FLOOR by conservative Bob Dornan (R-CA).

Dornan is a complete ass, whose sanity has often been brought into question. He's quoted as saying: "Every lesbian spear chucker in this country is hoping I get defeated." You gotta admit, the guys got a gift - he managed to expose his bigotry for two groups of people in one short sentence.

In regards to the initiators and supporters of DOMA, as you said - it's a who's who of marriage failures and hypocrisy. I did not realize that it was Clinton that signed it into law. That's the 2nd worse thing Clinton did.

The Heathen Republican said...

David's example aside, I've never heard someone on the right claim that same-sex marriage will negatively affect their own marriage. The Republican stance is not about discrimination, it's one of defending traditional marriage. Traditional marriage has worked for western civilization for centuries, so what possible reason is there to overturn that?

Dromedary Hump said...

slavey worked for western civilizartion for centuries...what possible reason was there to reverse it?

Subjugation of women was prevelant in the west for centuries...what possile reason was there to change it?

The US miliray rejected integration of black troops for 80 years, ... what possible reason was there to change it?

Gays, scientists, heathens, Jews were all burned at the stake and/or persecuted throughout western history... what possible reason was there to change it?

and how does allowing people of the same sex and in love to marry "overturn" heterosexual marriage? It doesn't negate it/overtuen it..it expands the definition.

Words definitions change constantly... which is why you probably never say you are "gay"when you are happy. Afterall, the word gay meant happy for centuries...you seem to have adapted just fine with no ill effects.

I'll say it again, but more colorfully: if your marriage needs defending by government edict you have one fucked up union.

The Heathen Republican said...

@Dromedary Hump
Slavery: Abolish because it violates the small-L liberal principles of freedom and equality

Subjugation of Women: Abolish because it violates the small-L liberal principle of equality

Segregation in the Military: Abolish because it violates the small-L principle of equality

Persecution of Minorities: Has never been socially acceptable. Even today, the majority persecutes the minority. We should continue working to end it.

Traditional Marriage: What principle does this violate, exactly?

===

"allowing people of the same sex and in love to marry... doesn't negate it/overturn it..it expands the definition"

But why should we expand the definition? While I am predisposed to defend the status quo, I don't oppose change when it's for a good reason. So I ask you again: what's the reason for changing the definition of marriage?

"Word definitions change constantly... the word gay meant happy for centuries..."

Yes, and many words simply stay the same. Chair still means chair. If you're so open to changing the definition of words, why don't we redefine gay marriage to mean civil union?

"if your marriage needs defending by government edict you have one fucked up union."

Marriage needs to be defended because it is under assault. If it weren't under assault, it wouldn't need to be defended.

Seriously, what do you find so objectionable to the traditional definition of marriage? Why should it be redefined? It's standard for the people advocating change to offer legitimate rationale for the proposed change. If you want to redefine the word "chair," it's incumbent upon you to explain why. I shouldn't have to defend the traditional definition of "chair."

For the record, my position is to keep the traditional definition of marriage and have the federal government recognize civil unions. Civil unions that convey the same legal benefits and protections of traditional marriage.

NewEnglandBob said...

"But why should we expand the definition? While I am predisposed to defend the status quo, I don't oppose change when it's for a good reason. So I ask you again: what's the reason for changing the definition of marriage?"

To include more people who were discriminated against. Equal opportunity.

"Marriage needs to be defended because it is under assault. If it weren't under assault, it wouldn't need to be defended."

Only in the minds of people who support woo and magical thinking and believing is non-existent beings.

Other than religious reasons, no one has given a sufficient reason NOT to include more people.

Dromedary Hump said...

what a hypocritical retort.

it violates the freedom of people to marry. It treats them differently than heteros. It establishes them as 2nd class citizens, unworthy of all the rights and privelidges you and I have. Thus, it infringes on their right of liberty and the persuit of happiness.

All that, and it would hurt you not one bit...except that it offends your primative-biblically inspired sensibilities. That is ALL that is atstake here, yet I fear you're too ensconced in that Christian mentality to intellectually understand or admit it.

I knew an exLutheran once who while he claimed atheism, was staunchly embeded in the mindset of Lutheran-think. That is, while he broke free from the supernaturalism, he remmained a slave to the its conservative biblically pronounced doctrines.

You seem to also be similarly afflicted.

Atheists have been persecuted for 100's of years, in the US laws were written to keep them out of government. My guess is your repub bretheren would support reinstating those laws, and enforcing them, Ofcourse, being a step-and-fetch it Tom atheist you'd probably kowtow to those demands as only right.

Gay marriage is a given. It's going to happen, just a matter of time. You can rage against the wind of change and acceptance, like they did when interracial marriage was finally allowed; now it's a norm . You're wasting your breath, but worse...you're exposing the residual affects of the God Virus and you're helping to promulgate it.

Dromedary Hump said...

"marraige is under assault" <-- Perhaps one of the most inane and inspid comments I've ever read. someone drank the ann coulter / glenn beck cool aid.

Dromedary Hump said...

I wonder..does the growth of and acceptence of atheism/non-belief mean Christianity is "under assault"? If you hear the pope, the Xtian right the dominionists, and the televangelists, its exactly what they'll say. EXACTLY!!

I'm guessing Heathen GOP lacks the intellectual honesty to see how vapid the very concept of "under asssault" is.

The Heathen Republican said...

"it violates the freedom of people to marry"

Sure it does, but we already restrict marriage in other ways. Can't marry family, can't marry more than one person, can't marry children, can't marry someone of the same sex. Are you saying we shouldn't restrict marriage in any way? That would be intellectually honest, at least.

"It treats them differently than heteros. It establishes them as 2nd class citizens, unworthy of all the rights and privelidges you and I have. Thus, it infringes on their right of liberty and the persuit of happiness."

Actually, it treats them exactly the same as heteros. Heteros ALSO can't marry someone of the same sex. Identical treatment; no discrimination.

"it offends your primative-biblically inspired sensibilities. That is ALL that is atstake here, yet I fear you're too ensconced in that Christian mentality to intellectually understand or admit it."

It doesn't offend my sensibilities in the least. I support full equality for homosexuals and have never understood gay bigotry. You should stick to the words on the page and avoid jumping to conclusions.

"Gay marriage is a given. It's going to happen, just a matter of time."

I think this is absolutely true. The right will lose this fight just as they lose most fights over social policy (some of them correctly). But the inevitability doesn't mean we stop standing up for principle. Would you bend your principles so easily?

"You can rage against the wind of change and acceptance, like they did when interracial marriage was finally allowed; now it's a norm."

No one here would claim they have seen my rage, but you seem to be a little worked up. The reason this battle will be lost is that the left is employing the same tactics of race that they've used in the past, just as you brought up interracial marriage.

There is a fundamental difference between men and women, but no fundamental difference between the races. You know this intuitively since I doubt you think separate men's and women's restrooms are a result of bigotry.

===

All of this attacking my position and you have yet to offer a single reason why we should redefine marriage. All you have are assumptions about my atheism and my adherence to Republican doctrine, but no substantive reasons of your own. Anyone reading this can see who is under attack and who has to defend.

I stand behind the traditional definition of "chair." Tell me why it should change.

NewEnglandBob said...

"Sure it does, but we already restrict marriage in other ways. Can't marry family, can't marry more than one person, can't marry children, can't marry someone of the same sex. Are you saying we shouldn't restrict marriage in any way? That would be intellectually honest, at least."

Most of those are genetic reasons, which are legitimate. Having possibly deformed children is the result. That wont happen with same-sex marriages :)

Why can't people marry more than one person? There isn't even a religious reason for that because it is stated all over the bible. The only reason for that is jealousy, as far as I can see. Or maybe it is a control issue.

Dromedary Hump said...

you point to medical reasons, genetic abnormality as a reason why close relatives can't marry..then hold that up as a justification to restrain a union between two people whose genetics never come into play..other than their same chromosome mix? And somehow, in your mind, that justifies governmental intervention into peoples happiness?

What next..you going to toss in people can't marry animals...so theres another reason? You can't be this insipid.

You then use heteros as also being restrained from marrying their same sex, thus it's fair for all, which is beyond stupid, defies intelligent retort, and is unworthy of even the most pitiful douchbag.

You are desperately trying to avoid having to say: "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." But that is the only basis you have for your intolerance and antiquated perspective. If you looked hard enough you'd see it. I understand it. I used to be that way myself.

Then I anylized my reasoning and it became as clear as day as to what my objections were... because religion says so.

You claim to support gay rights. A convenient position. No doubt you'll say some homos are your best friends. You probably would have supported equal education for blacks in the 50's and 60's ...just so long as it was in seperate schools.

I have zero interest in your converting to reason. You claim to have accepted reason, or so your name implies, as it relates to rejection of the supernatural. I doubt it. But if so, in all other ways you are as ensconced in religio-think as are your political icons, and it runs deep. You've reverted to it instead of simple reasoning. It's conforting to you I imagine.

I have given you numerous reasons why marriage should be all inclusive. You have chosen to reject them. Much like a creationist who is given volumes of evidence, they will inevitably come back to "But where is your proof?"

Last thing: word meanings evolve. Words include things / concepts / definitions now that they didn't in the past. This is part of how language and civilization evolves. "Awful" used to mean "full of awe". It happens. It's goig to happen with "marriage." Get used to it or not, it means nothing in the long term.

BTW... "rage against the wind" isn't an observation of your demeanor. It's an analogy for fighting a useless battle, pissing in the wind, shoveling shit against the tide of change. It should have been obvious even to you. But I over estimated you.

I think we've whipped this to death. You're comments are complete. My patience with your ilk are exhausted.

Dromedary Hump said...

just glanced at you're blog... my mistake, you're no atheist.

Your name misleads and used up alot of unneccessary discussion. If you had said you're a religionist up front, I wouldn't have wasted a sentence on you. It was the irrationality of your presumed reason with the unreason of your position on gay marriage that threw me. I thought I was dealing with a thinking person. Mea culpa.


No wonder you're so entrenched against reason, reason is the enemy of religionists. And while you claim on the site not to permit religious talk to support a political ideal, you're doing exactly that with out acknowleging it is purley relgious think that drives your objection.

What a phony.

"Non- Heathen" let me advise you, further comments submitted will be deleted unread. There are few things I dispise more than hypocrites and deceptive religionists.

Mike Meyers said...

I am a few days behind on this, but after reading what Heathen wrote, I started getting worked up and was ready to fire a warning shot across his bow. Then I scrolled to the end and read what Hump had to say and calmed down a bit. Thanks Hump. Heathen was definitely a religious troll. I like having intelligent discussions with people that have opposing points of view, but I could find nothing of intelligence in his arguments.

tiNstAg said...

Couldn't have said it better myself:
Clint Eastwood on Gay Marriage

Dromedary Hump said...

smart man, that Clint Eastwood.
Thks for that.

Kassul said...

"I think that gay people should have the right to get married by Elvis like everybody else."
- Margaret Cho

I believe that state/public acknowledment of the marriages of gay people will bring happiness to many. Doubtless some will be upset, but IMO fuck them. As People were upset when various other groups had their rights in other areas acknowledged too.
Marriage isn't just for whites, and it's not just for hetero couples. It's for legally consenting adults as far as I'm concerned.

Society has not yet collapsed in various countries all over the world where same-sex couples have been married. Nor have the US states that condone it suffered due to gays and lesbians being wed.
I've seen only positives up here in Canada.