Gay Patriot Header Image

Democrat Lawmaker Makes an Eloquent Case for Same Sex Marriage

Posted by V the K at 10:19 pm - April 12, 2014.
Filed under: Gay Marriage

I confess, it moved me. There was an actual tear. Just a little one.

“Now, I’m for interracial marriage. I’m for same-sex marriage. I’m the one that introduced the bill to have same-sex marriage. I don’t care who marry who. If a man meet a little mule and he wanna get married to the little mule, as long as he and the little mule get along all right, that’s fine with me. It doesn’t bother me any kind of way.”



  1. There was an actual tear. Just a little one.

    From sadness and dismay that one such as this could be elected to public office…or from straining mightily to hold back gales of laughter?

    Comment by JMan1961 — April 13, 2014 @ 12:29 am - April 13, 2014

  2. The only way to really get government out of the bedroom is to end the practice of issuing marriage licenses, completely, rather than making marriage completely meaningless and taxing it.

    Seriously, when you can marry your dog and the state benefits from the tax collected to obtain said license…

    Just eliminate the legal requirement of a license, period. Eliminate marriage from the tax code (it requires a total revamping of the tax code, but people have been clamoring for that).

    Comment by Craig Smith — April 13, 2014 @ 6:06 am - April 13, 2014

  3. @ Craig Smith: The practice of issuing marriage licenses is only about a century old. It ties into the first eugenics movement, which reached its zenith in America during the late 1800s and early 1900s. We were the first country to start implementing eugenics laws, it was Europe that followed (Germany especially) that followed our lead.

    Marriage licenses were issued after the state governments determined the integrity of each potential spouse’s blood. Family histories of, or personally having things like low intelligence, syphilis, epilepsy, and other “communicable diseases” disqualified you from marriage, either to stop you from contaminating a “fit” person’s bloodline, or to stop you from combining your “unfit” bloodline with another person. If both spouses were “fit,” eugenicists argued that they had to be given TAX REBATES AND OTHER SUBSIDIES to encourage them to breed.

    So the next time somebody says that they are in favor of gay marriage because “you should be able to marry whomever you love,” tell them that they are supporting an institution that offers benefits instituted at a time when the government kept people who were in love from dating. See what they make of that.

    Comment by Sean — April 13, 2014 @ 7:14 am - April 13, 2014

  4. Not only is piling on in this case too obvious, it’s too disgusting.

    Comment by Ignatius — April 13, 2014 @ 11:39 am - April 13, 2014

  5. Was this Dhimmicrat jackwagon the same one who said that there were no interracial adoptions in Alabama, and yet when confronted with the obvious he pretended he didn’t say it?

    Hypocrisy, thy name is liberalism.

    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — April 13, 2014 @ 5:03 pm - April 13, 2014

  6. Ah, it looks like there is a slippery slope after all. No, this man is just pure crazy. How did he even get elected?

    Comment by Charles — April 13, 2014 @ 6:12 pm - April 13, 2014

  7. @sean Yes, I know the history of the marriage license. Which is why I want to abolish them.

    Comment by Craig Smith — April 13, 2014 @ 6:36 pm - April 13, 2014

  8. And here I thought that slippery slope was covered in poodle shit. *facepalm*

    Comment by Ignatius — April 13, 2014 @ 6:56 pm - April 13, 2014

  9. End Federal Involvement in Marriage?
    Conservatives usually believe that government involvement in anything tends to make matters worse. Indeed, marriage may be no exception. Once upon a time, the government had an excuse to be involved in marriage. In order to “promote the general welfare” it was believed that promoting marriage would lead to more family units and strengthen the welfare of the country. In fact, it was once more advantageous to get married and have children than to not. But as marriage becomes less and less religious-based, and as government no longer even promote the benefits of marriage, a question arises: why is the government involved in marriage at all? This is the key question. What good purpose does government serve in being involved in marriage in the first place? The original goal of promoting the family unit has long been kicked to the curb. The welfare state is so large, that it is actually disadvantageous to get married. Perhaps the best equality is leaving the issue alone.

    A marriage license replaces a private marriage contract (modern day term is pre-nuptial) between two people and replaces with three parties: man, woman, state, with the State having the controlling vested interest. The fruits of this partnership between man, woman, state is the children which gives the state the say so as to who gets the kids, how they are educated, what is proper care, etc., when the business contractees decide to close shop (divorce). Marriage is not between a man and a woman. It is way ahead in progressiveness than same-sex marriage as it is, in reality, a threesome. The man and the woman are equal partners in the contract and the state is the controlling interest, allowing such things as Social Services to take the fruits of the labor/business away from the parents without due process that applies to everything else. Marriage licensing replaces the traditional father with the State. Used to be a couple got married in their church and the terms of contract were those established within their doctrines of faith. Those without marriage or unwritten terms of contract could have marriage common law applied, which really was the basic contractual common denominators of the various churches and communities. Why settle for a threesome with very vague and constantly changing, subjective terms when you can draw up your own “pre-nuptual” outlining all the terms? Why not treat it as a business entity that it is instead of bringing the state into it? Let the gays have their state marriages and we start drawing up domestic partnerships, walking away from the tax code benefits, and having our unions celebrated and signed with a church marriage? You do not need a state marriage to change name or have children have same surname. And if we support recognition that domestic partnerships receive familial recognition and benefits, everyone wins. Am I serious?

    Comment by sandy — April 14, 2014 @ 7:56 pm - April 14, 2014

  10. The Shift
    by Stephen H. Miller on April 14, 2014
    A trend is being recognized here:

    National Journal, Republicans Are Openly Softening Their Tone on Same-Sex Marriage: “Social conservatives may not have raised the white flag on same-sex marriage yet, but their party’s leaders are in search of something of a compromise.”

    BuzzFeed: No Sign Of Social Issues As Conservative Leaders Preach To Activists: “the prospective [GOP presidential] candidates’ reluctance to talk about these issues at an event that had been explicitly marketed as a 2016 preview does not bode well for the religious right’s agenda.”

    The GOP leadership and presidential front-runners know that a generational shift within the party is coming—61% of young Republicans support same-sex marriage—and what that means

    – See more at:

    Comment by rusty — April 15, 2014 @ 12:48 am - April 15, 2014

  11. I almost bought into his arguement. If only he had used a Unicorn in his metaphor instead of a mule…

    Comment by runningrn — April 15, 2014 @ 12:11 pm - April 15, 2014

  12. […] good friends over at GayPatriot highlighted this quote from an Alabama […]

    Pingback by If This Were A Conservative He Would be Declared A Hatemonger - Citizens News — April 16, 2014 @ 10:20 am - April 16, 2014

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.