I can't believe I watched "hardball"

[natedogg]

Senator Orrin Hatch, a mormon, arguing for a gay marriage amendment, using two of the usual asinine arguments.

1. We can't allow a radical court of one state to destroy marriage.
2. It will lead to legalizing polygamy.

Regarding 1, how exactly would it "destroy marriage" to allow gays to do it too? I have yet to hear anyone advocate changing marriage to be for gays ONLY.

Regarding #2, the irony of listening to a MORMON supporting federal intrusion into states rights and individuals' marriages because they want to prevent any chance of legalizing polygamy is just too much.

natedogg

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Regarding 1, how exactly would it "destroy marriage" to allow gays to do it too? I have yet to hear anyone advocate changing marriage to be for gays ONLY.


[/ QUOTE ]

Speaking from personal experience, my marriage will be much weaker if gay people can get married. No question about it. I might as well file for divorce now in anticipation...

[ericd]

I also watched. I think I understand the logic? of the Hatch argument.

- federal law requires marriages in one state to be recognized in other states
- the liberal justices in MA (by a margin of 1) united through a subversive plot to allow gay marriages to be legal
- gays married in MA must be now recognized as married in all other states
- the only way to stop such nonsense from spreading and keep America safe is by amending the constitution

Makes perfect sense to me.

[Homer]

I can't believe I watched "hardball"

No way, great movie. Classic performance by Keanu Reeves.

[Cyrus]

If a state can impose its marriage specifications on all others, then a state should also be able to impose its rules on sexual conduct on all others.

(Other states I mean.)

So I think this should extend to sex. If one state outlaws sodomy, all states should abide by that prohibition. That would take care of most of gays' desire to get married. My church pastor says that's all gays care about.

For non-gays, there would be no problem, since sodomy is an unethical and heathen practice anyway.

Then all we'd have to deal with would be the lesbians. I will let others elaborate.

[John Cole]

Before enacting any legislation, we should consider the example of the Boston Red Sox, a team with special rules for pitchers and catchers. Let the pitchers do as they will. Legislate against the catchers.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
If a state can impose its marriage specifications on all others, then a state should also be able to impose its rules on sexual conduct on all others.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. One confers a legal status (i.e. married, divorced). One doesn't.

The states aren't imposing their specifications for marriage...Laws that allow Las Vegas quickie marriages don't mean that all states have to allow for quickie marriages. It means that once validly married (or divorced for that matter) in a state, another state has to recognize that legal status.

[ericd]

As I try to recall and sift through the political double talk of Sen. Hatch, I seem to remember that he said that a legal marriage in MA would have to be recognized in MS. So if MS hired one of the people married in MA then the other would receive the same benefits any other spouse in MS would. But, their behavior in the bedroom would be under the jurisdiction of the MS laws not the MA laws.