“In the Civil War, some 600,000 people died in a country that was much less populated than that today, and it was a much more religious country,” the lawmaker said. “I think a lot of people who died fighting in that war felt they died fighting for a religious cause — you know, ‘Battle Hymn of the Republic’ and all that.”
As former slave states debate whether to remove the Confederate battle flag from government buildings, Grothman said Union troops would find the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling “particularly offensive” to their religious beliefs.
“I think it would shock those people who died in that war to find out the constitutional amendment which was ratified kind of as a culmination of their great efforts and their great deaths would be, 150 years later, a little less than 150 years later, used by these five robed, arrogant, robed people to take this constitutional amendment and say that that constitutional amendment that was drafted after the Civil War was in fact an amendment designed to say that same-sex marriage had to be legal,” Grothman said.
Using similar logic, we should have kept slavery, because do you know how many people combined fought in the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and the Civil War, and were slaveholders and we're disrespecting them by not engaging in their "peculiar institution"? I have no numbers on that idea, I'm just saying, it's stupid and what he's saying is stupid. Keep in mind that both slavery and segregation were preached from the pulpit time out of mind. We got a little better about the whole race thing. I really don't think we need to look back at the armed defenders of slavery to justify people who are a little bit flipping out over LGBT rights at the moment, actually, he basically kind of proved why time might prove the marriage equality side right.
And don't get me started on all the closeted and open gays who have fought in wars for this country who are totally disrespected by this argument. Really? Queer people can fight and bleed and die for this country, but you want to dismiss their ability to form loving relationships and families?
Thanks for playing, Glenn.
2 comments:
Hi Vixen, you had an exciting week. We heard bits and pieces of it on the car radio and a little in the hotel. Business trip.
This will probably be the new Roe v Wade, because when Ireland adopted marriage for gays they did it by voting on the issue, as it should have been here. I expect this to be controversial for many decades.
The only thing we can say for sure is that there will be a lot of unforeseen and unintended consequences. Only history will be able to judge whether the consequences ultimately fall on the good or bad side or the ledger as the Kali Yuga is racing on. I'm not holding my breath for a benevolent outcome.
On the other hand, our business trip was successful, so we may have to console ourselves with some ocean voyages. I mentioned one time that Buddha said that a person who reaches 60 should be happy, because they are no longer part of the system. I think in the US it takes a bit longer, but thank goodness one does eventually reach that plateau.
This will probably be the new Roe v Wade, because when Ireland adopted marriage for gays they did it by voting on the issue, as it should have been here. I expect this to be controversial for many decades.
I don't doubt that you're right about this having political consequences and the potential for push-back--I'm seeing the kind of language that at least will have the evangelical and far-right conservative base feeling more activist in future elections. I know part of what I'm hearing is a criticism of the "unelected black-robed tyrants" with some suggestions about referendum elections--I really don't see how elections for judges really would make anything better--our elections for legislative and executive branch positions are already pretty partisan and money-corrupted as it is. And although Presidents to appoint judges, there is the "advise and consent" role of congress to think about. I think this may mean, coming up on 2016, that candidates are going to be a bit more open about judicial selection being part of what is at stake with both a presidential nominee and the people we sent to Congress. I don't think Democrats would push for any national-level legislation regarding gay marriage because as far as the Left is concerned--we won. But if the GOP pushed for taking their anti-marriage equality plank to the next level, I think the vote might be actually an interesting exercise. If it narrowly won--new court cases immediately and the 6 out of 10 people in favor of marriage equality make a strong electoral point. The legislation goes down after at least two electoral cycles. If it narrowly loses, more freedom of religion cases hit the bench, certainly, but I doubt the exercise is ever tried again. The more gay and lesbians that marry--the more people that know at least one family directly impacted, I think the less and less likely marriage equality gets overturned, whether by legislation or not.
I have a way to go before I reach sixty--if inshallah I do--so I'm at the point I just like seeing other people be happy. I'm glad you had a nice trip. I'm headed to Italy later this year on family business. That's going to be a three-week trip and I'll probably go crazy from less (if not no) posting and being away from my garden.
Post a Comment