Skip to main content

Apparently there's a new Republican hedging his bets on the whole gay marriage issue, and it's—wait, is this right? Sen. Lindsey Graham? Yeah, I'm not buying it.
This is a departure from Graham’s longstanding commitment to a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Just four years ago, Graham affirmed his support for a federal amendment that would “define marriage between one man and one woman” as a way to “defend and promote traditional South Carolina values.”
Yes, that was four years ago. Now, with all due respect to South Carolinians, there are damn few civil rights discussions in which positively invoking "traditional South Carolina values" is ever a good idea—there is, shall we say, a history there. You want to have a talk about "traditional South Carolina values" as they relate to food or landscaping or beachfront properties, fine, go nuts, but when it comes to anything involving civil rights and who should have them, wisdom suggests you might want to leave the phrase "traditional South Carolina values" on the front porch for the duration of that little fight. All right, mini-rant over.

Fast forward to Tuesday, and Graham explaining to CNN's Piers Morgan that well fine, instead of having a constitutional amendment banning the recognition of gay marriage no matter what individual states might think, which was Graham's previous position, maybe now it's all about states' rights after all and the onus is on people who think gay Americans ought to have the same rights as other Americans to pass a constitutional amendment saying that, if they really mean it. And yes, holy hell, he actually does couch it in the language of slavery:

Can — can I suggest this? Slavery was outlawed by a Constitutional amendment. Go watch “Lincoln,” a great movie. The people decided. The question for us is who should decide these things? Should it be a handful of judges or should it be the people themselves? And I come out on the side of the people themselves. Different people will look at it  differently. But slavery was outlawed by a Constitutional amendment. If you want to propose a Constitutional amendment legalizing same-sex marriage and it passes, that’s the law of the land.
And with that, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham yada-yada-yadas the entire American Civil War, aka the War Between the States, aka the War of Nurthern Aggreshun, out of existence. The American people decided that black people maybe ought to not be held as property, blah blah blah, Constitution patched up a bit, problem solved. If you people who think two women ought to be able to hold the same rights as any other couple would just do that, then everything would be solved.

While some see this as Graham softening ever-so-slightly on the gay marriage issue—specifically, Graham now says it should be left to each state to decide, which apparently means he is no longer for his proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage everywhere because of "values"—I'm not seeing it. Instead, he's someone on the losing end of an issue who is now just moving the goalposts. Oh, states still definitely have the right to pass anti-LGBT laws, according to Graham. But if you want to grant those civil rights, instead of abridging them, well screw you—that's going to take an entire constitutional amendment to do that.

Given the thought that the Defense of Marriage Act and other anti-LGBT legislation is at this point increasingly on the losing end of the public opinion arguments, it's a neat trick. But to me doesn't sound like a "softening" on anything. All three of the people in this excruciating little interview sound like end-career anti-civil-rights guys who know they're losing the issue badly, and will continue to do so, and are just looking to buy a bit more time.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Thank you for writing this. I can't imagine a (18+ / 0-)

    scenario in which we should extend the benefit of the doubt to Lindsey Graham.

    Poverty = politics.

    by Renee on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 07:18:44 PM PST

  •  Obvious follow up Question (7+ / 0-)

    Is he saying Dred Scott was rightly decided?  He's a lawyer, so, this should be right up his alley.

    •  FYI: Dredd Scott v. Sanford (4+ / 0-)

      Was the infamous 1857 Supreme Court case where the Supreme Court decided that black people had no rights.  According to Lindsey Graham's logic, the Court made the prudent decision - after all, they were just leaving the matter up to the people.

      Taney -- a staunch supporter of slavery and intent on protecting southerners from northern aggression -- wrote in the Court's majority opinion that, because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The framers of the Constitution, he wrote, believed that blacks "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it."

      Referring to the language in the Declaration of Independence that includes the phrase, "all men are created equal," Taney reasoned that "it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration. . . ."
    •  You couldn't fairly read that into his remarks. (0+ / 0-)

      The Court wasn't being asked to decide on the constitutionality of slavery in "Dred Scott", something that none of the parties seriously disputed.

      •  Alright, you tell me (0+ / 0-)

        The great distance between these philosophies.  

        No one, we presume, supposes that any change in public opinion or feeling, in relation to this unfortunate race, in the civilized nations of Europe or in this country, should induce the court to give to the words of the Constitution a more liberal construction in their favor than they were intended to bear when the instrument was framed and adopted. Such an argument would be altogether inadmissible in any tribunal called on to interpret it. If any of its provisions are deemed unjust, there is a mode prescribed in the instrument itself by which it may be amended; but while it remains unaltered, it must be construed now as it was understood at the time of its adoption. It is not only the same in words, but the same in meaning, and delegates the same powers to the Government, and reserves and secures the same rights and privileges to the citizen; and as long as it continues to exist in its present form, it speaks not only in the same words, but with the same meaning and intent with which it spoke when it came from the hands of its framers, and was voted on and adopted by the people of the United States. Any other rule of construction would abrogate the judicial character of this court, and make it the mere reflex of the popular opinion or passion of the day.
        The people decided. The question for us is who should decide these things? Should it be a handful of judges or should it be the people themselves? And I come out on the side of the people themselves. Different people will look at it differently. But slavery was outlawed by a Constitutional amendment. If you want to propose a Constitutional amendment legalizing same-sex marriage and it passes, that’s the law of the land.
        The Taney Court said - hey, slavery might be unfortunate, but it's not our job to change the Constitution, which clearly denied civil rights.

        Lindsey Graham says - gay people not having equality may be unfortunate, but it's not the Court's job to change the Constitution, even if they are denied civil rights.  

        •  I'm not aware of any school of thought (0+ / 0-)

          that believes the Court has the ability to change fundamentally understood rules of the Constitution.  There's no serious argument that the Constitution didn't allow slavery, and nobody in "Dred Scott" was arguing otherwise; it's nonsensical to compare that to arguments about the Equal Protection Clause.  "Dred Scott" wasn't about that.  It was about whether the traditional understanding of how slavery within the federal system worked should be upheld; the court said no, and completely rewrote the history of American jurisprudence with regard to slavery jurisdiction.

          "Dred Scott" is an outrageous decision because Taney and co. completely trashed the existing law of the United States, and massively overreached on the case in front of them while doing so.  Curtis and McLean's dissents meticulously document all the bullshit they're trying to sell as established law and history.

          If anything, frankly, that decision is an example of what Graham was arguing against.  Among other things, they tried to oust all power to decide the question of slavery in the territories from both Congress and the territorial legislatures, removing the power of the people to democratically make rules on that subject by law.

          •  To add: Obviously, the Court has the *ability* (0+ / 0-)

            to do that; it can put forward any interpretation it wants.  That's what it did in "Dred Scott", in fact.  But I don't know of any school of constitutional interpretation that suggests judges can discard parts of it whenever they feel like it (as opposed to enumerating and interpreting new rights under existing grants of rights).

          •  Forget about the technicalities of Dread Scott. (0+ / 0-)

            How is it that now, with this issue, Graham is ready to trash one entire wing of the three pillars of our government and feels that the Supreme Court should not have their say?

            All of these morons are going around worshiping the Constitution, 24/7, but they seem to be willing to disregard anything the SCOTUS says when it doesn't fit into their worldview.  

            Except when they declare George Bush President, that is.

        •  Lindsay does so with one eye over his shoulder (0+ / 0-)

          looking at the number of legislatures and state houses currentlycontrolled by Tea Bag republicans, 25 or maybe 30. Eight more and he gets anything he wants under his States' Rights theory and can put the lot into the Constitution.

  •  everyday people don't decide... (7+ / 0-)

    ...on a constitutional amendment. State legislatures do. Same legislatures that now allow for guns in day cares, try to ban sharia law, and force women to get an ultrasound

  •  Worthless bastard (5+ / 0-)

    This is one of the worse senators ever.

    "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

    by noofsh on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 07:23:40 PM PST

  •  No, the people shouldn't decide... (11+ / 0-)

    ...I still can't believe Prop. 8 passed here in CA. And it wouldn't surprise me if allowed to vote for it, there'd be a southern State that would re-instate slavery. No, the people shouldn't decide on civil rights issues.

    Only the weak & defeated are called to account for their crimes.

    by rreabold on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 07:25:14 PM PST

  •  Horrible Senator (0+ / 0-)

    I hear he was very enthusiastic in bed, though, back in his day.

    "I'll believe that corporations are people when I see Rick Perry execute one."

    by bink on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 07:26:10 PM PST

  •  How about this, Senator, instead of amending (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mmacdDE, Farlfoto

    the Constitution prematurely, why don't we first send troops down there to straighten you guys out like we did when slavery was a fine South Carolinian traditional value?  I mean, why not deal with the amendment after another civil war, like Lincoln did because, after all, the Emancipation Proclamation was an Executive Order by the Commander in Chief during the height of that war.   So, if we're gonna follow Lincoln's lead lets invade, proclaim gays to be equal, and then after we've drubbed y'all into submission and laid waste to half of the country, then get the amendment passed.  That's the way Lincoln did it, Lindsey.

    "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you succeed." - Nancy Pelosi // Question: "succeed" at what?

    by nailbender on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 07:26:30 PM PST

  •  How do you interview that guy about gay marriage.. (11+ / 0-)

    ....and not say, "Lindsey......c'mon.....who do you think you're fooling?"

    "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

    by Bush Bites on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 07:28:03 PM PST

  •  Isn't he supposed to have firsthand knowledge (6+ / 0-)

    on gay issues?  He is becoming ever more disgusting as he tries to hold on to his seat.  His behavior toward Susan Rice was execrable.  I'dlike to see him lose, but is there anyone to run against him?

    The scientific uncertainty doesn't mean that climate change isn't actually happening.

    by Mimikatz on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 07:28:23 PM PST

    •  I genuinely hate what they did to Susan Rice, but (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Scott Wooledge

      look at their conduct, promising to keep O on a 'short leash' with every Debt Ceiling and Continuing Resolution vote, calling him vile names, and the like on a daily basis to the national press for them to repeat the dissing, and then wonder in public why they can't get deals.

      Susan Rice to them did not matter because she,despite her vast competence is both black and a woman and therefore infinitely disposable and insultable in the same way Elilzabeth was in Mass with that woo-woo-woo business, and  in Susan's case, the power to abuse without consequences is added to by the possibility of getting a second shot for the woo wooer Scott Brown at the Senate within a few months of his loss at the polls.

      It may be that each victory or good position by O now is required by his backing to call forth the kind of crap we are seeing here, as a sign of loyalty to them or the party or something. And they are doing it.

      And Lindsey's fate is in the hands of SCers who will have two senators to elect in 2014, so he can feel them breathing down his neck.

    •  Well, if Stephen Colbert doesn't get (0+ / 0-)

      Demint's seat, maybe he could.

      That would be an awesome race. Hell, maybe he could primary him.

  •  He's only going to get weirder(er) (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    judyms9, JeffW, Matt Z, Scott Wooledge

    to fend off a primary challenge

    The 1st Amendment gives you the right to say stupid things, the 1st Amendment doesn't guarantee a paycheck to say stupid things.

    by JML9999 on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 07:29:28 PM PST

  •  Really? Senator Graham, (3+ / 0-)

    This from the guy who told President Obama to "man up". I think SC needs to take a really close look at Senator Graham. I think he protests way to much.

  •  Maybe (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JeffW, Scott Wooledge

    little Lindsey is getting ready to finally come out of the closet.

  •  So Massive Warfare and Death? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    "there are damn few civil rights discussions in which positively invoking "traditional South Carolina values" is ever a good idea" ...  Damn Right.

    Has he ever read the SC Declaration of Causes
    of Seceding States?

    The seceded because they could not force the other states to accept slavery, not because it was being made illegal in the South:

    "For twenty years past the abolitionists and their allies in the Northern States have been engaged in constant efforts to subvert our institutions and to excite insurrection and servile war among us."


    •  I made a comment today regarding SC (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      The only time I plan on visiting that state is when I volunteer to give them their secession paper work.

      Because honestly, if the South wants to secede...let's send them the paperwork! SC values my ass.

      Romney = Nixon without the sweating problem

      by YoungArizonaLiberal on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 07:51:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hey Lindsey: "Don't think of an elephant!!!!" (8+ / 0-)

    You dumb motherfucker, you just equated homophobia with slavery.  This is solid political gold, dude.

    Thank you thank you thank you thank you.  

    We could never have done it so effectively ourselves without a certified homophobe giving us his imprimatur.  

    You da bomb, baby!

    "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you succeed." - Nancy Pelosi // Question: "succeed" at what?

    by nailbender on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 07:33:17 PM PST

  •  Like to point out that Graham is obviously gay (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Scott Wooledge

    You would have to be completely deluded to think otherwise, especially given the fact that he has never been married.

  •  asdf (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    offgrid, Farlfoto
    The people decided. The question for us is who should decide these things? Should it be a handful of judges or should it be the people themselves?
    Really, Lindsay?

    where was this point of view in December of 2000???????

    Sadly, everything Communism said about itself was a lie. Even more sadly,, everything Communism said about Capitalism was the truth.

    by GayIthacan on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 07:39:17 PM PST

  •  I might be wrong (5+ / 0-)

    But wasn't that amendment adopted without Southern States?

    Becuase I'm more than willing to go that route!

    •  Yeah. I actually did think that. (0+ / 0-)

      Don't tempt us, the rate we're going that may not be such a high bar in a few years.

      "The marriage fight is over when we say it's over, and it's over when we win."—Dan Savage

      by Scott Wooledge on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 09:46:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You are wrong (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      As it happens... the states were legally considered to have never left the Union, though they did forfeit their representation in Congress for a while.  

      So the 13th amendment required 27 out of 36 states, and that included 7 ex-confederate states, which were run by Reconstruction Republican governments.

      Of course, not all the old South ratified it; Mississippi finally did in 1995.

      Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

      by nominalize on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 10:15:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  That sweet scent of being primaried in the (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JeffW, Scott Wooledge

    morning makes Graham lightheaded and apt to say anything to make the scary prospects of having to get a real job go away.

    Building a better America with activism, cooperation, ingenuity and snacks.

    by judyms9 on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 07:44:07 PM PST

  •  Two things: the rights of a minority should.. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JBraden, JeffW, offgrid, Scott Wooledge

    never be decided by the majority. Could Piers have found three bigger douche bags to have on his show?

    •  That's the sort of thing that makes a (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      good slogan/ideal, but in practice, minority rights that the majority doesn't respect essentially don't exist for legal purposes.  Whether the majority respects them by explicit vote or by not overturning them, all rights in our society exist by majority consent.  There's not really any other way to run a society.

      •  I agree with you from a societal standpoint (0+ / 0-)

        minorities are never really equal until everyone agrees that they are and that evolution of society is required for this to be accepted as true, if I understand you correctly?

        When it comes to granting specific rights to a minority group however like same sex marriage, it should not be put up to a referendum.

        •  Partly. But while I agree that a 50%+1 (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          standard is a ridiculous threshold to amend a constitution with, if it was higher (say, two-thirds), I really don't see much of a difference between holding a vote and having people elect representatives to make those decisions.  Though I suppose you could say that if they cared that strongly, they'd just elect representatives to do it for them.

  •  I've got an idea where Lindsey Graham can put (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JeffW, Matt Z

    those goal posts.

    Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

    by darthstar on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 07:48:51 PM PST

  •  States rights? (7+ / 0-)

    Really?  Really?  The senator from South Carolina, invoking Lincoln and states rights in the same breath?

    Lincoln?  An advocate of states' rights?  And he proved it by passing a constitutional amendment that overrode the rights of the states?

    My head hurts.

    "Historically, the most terrible things--war, genocide and slavery--have resulted not from disobedience, but from obedience." --Howard Zinn

    by NCJan on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 07:49:36 PM PST

    •  That Lincoln movie has given people the wrong (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JeffW, Matt Z, Scott Wooledge

      idea. Many love to quote him as a defense for current Republican values. Meanwhile, the real Lincoln, you know the actual person, not the fictitious caricature that he is made out to be isn't really the bastion of Republicanism, he is the antithesis.

      Romney = Nixon without the sweating problem

      by YoungArizonaLiberal on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 07:54:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  There HAS BEEN an amendment passed (9+ / 0-)

    that grants equal rights.  It's the 14th amendment senator.

    Picture a bright blue ball just spinnin' spinnin' free. It's dizzy with possibility.

    by lockewasright on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 07:56:58 PM PST

  •  Jon Stewart just said that Graham wants to 3-way (4+ / 0-)

    marry McCain and Lieberman

    "Rick Perry talks a lot and he's not very bright. And that's a combination I like in Republicans." --- James Carville

    by LaurenMonica on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 08:09:06 PM PST

  •  The Pledge of Allegiance clearly states, (0+ / 0-)

    "...liberty and justice for all."

    If marriage is a right for some it must be a right for all.

    So no South Carolinian can make the pledge honestly and disallow a human/civil right for all.

    Hey, Lindsay, why aren't YOU married?

    skipping over damaged area

    by Says Who on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 08:10:37 PM PST

  •  Linday sees what happened on Nov 12 (0+ / 0-)

    we've crossed the threshold on marriage equality, in 2012 putting ballot initiatives drove more progressives out to the polls than it did red meat conservatives.   At least it did in MN.  

  •  So (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z, mmacdDE

    If a state decided to make it illegal for people whose family names end in "m" or "n" -- or for jews -- to get married, these three Senators would be just fine with that, since marriage is a matter left to the states.

    This aggression will not stand, man.

    by kaleidescope on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 08:26:54 PM PST

  •  He sees the landscape changing (0+ / 0-)

    It's not that he's pushing for a Constitutional amendment legalizing same-sex marriage, IMO. It's that it's pushing for it now. Public opinion is shifting (and I'm hugely proud to live in one of the first three states to affirm that right at the ballot box). But there probably aren't 38 states who would ratify it. Not yet, anyway.

    Make no mistake, this isn't Lindsey Graham coming around to the idea of gay marriage. This isn't even Lindsey Graham demonstrating a belief in democracy, even when it runs counter to his personal beliefs. This is Lindsey Graham acknowledging that attitudes are changing very quickly. He's talking about an amendment now because he knows that he still has a good chance to see it defeated, and the cause at least partially defused. In five years, that's less likely. In a decade. very unlikely.

    •  The thing is (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      It takes a loooonnnnnggggg time for constitutional amendments to get passed.

      Getting out of the congress is just the first step, and there's no time limit on how long the states have to deal with it.

      So go ahead, get it rolling. By the time the states deal with it, it will pass without any problems.

      •  There USUALLY is no time limit (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        This was NOT the case with the Equal Rights Amendment, which is why it was never passed and why it would now have to be re-introduced from scratch.

        Whoever thought a time limit on the ERA was a good idea, had an extreme case of rectocranial inversion.

        If it's
        Not your body,
        Then it's
        Not your choice
        And it's
        None of your damn business!

        by TheOtherMaven on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 07:48:02 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Graham does see the writing on the wall... (0+ / 0-)

    he's setting up the next frame. If Prop 8 goes the whole nine yards* and strikes all the gay marriage bans in the states, and delivers universal marriage equality, the right will only have "judicial activism" to run against.

    They can squeeze a few more years of poutrage out of it acting as though the Supreme Court has no place affirming the rights of minorities.

    Even though that was precisely what the courts was intended to do when the Founding Fathers (who they worship but don't know) set up the whole three branches of checks and balances government.

    Even though that is exactly what the right expects the Court to do when it finds itself on the minority side (like with the Affordable Care Act).

    *Something I don't think will happen, but is is hypothetically possible.

    "The marriage fight is over when we say it's over, and it's over when we win."—Dan Savage

    by Scott Wooledge on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 09:54:06 PM PST

  •  We already did that. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dharmafarmer, MPociask

    It's called the 14th amendment.  And it's about as popular with South Carolinians as you might expect.

    "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    Right there, in plain text.  No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws.  It doesn't say, "any straight person."  Despite our shameful, hateful legacy of interpreting the 14th amendment to exclude GLBT people (along with women, and racial minorities, and atheists, etc.) it's right there in the text.  Just need evil fuckers like Sen. Graham to start following the constitution they claim to love so much.

    "And the President of the United States - would be seated right here. I would be here. And he would be here. I would turn - and there he’d be. I could pet ‘im." - Lewis Black

    by libdevil on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 11:24:24 PM PST

  •  Well, maybe li'l Lindsay's comin' outta the closet (0+ / 0-)

    soon and wants to smooth the way for his post-Senate retirement.

  •  Where in the Constitution is Marriage Defined (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I know, I know. But after all, shouldn't the party that claims to know the Constitution inside out be able to point to the passage that defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and forbids cross gender marriage?

    "You've got to be very careful if you don't know where you are going, because you might not get there." “When you come to the fork in the road, take it.” --Yogi Berra

    by HeartlandLiberal on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 03:22:25 AM PST

  •  so by lil' lindsey's reasoning on slavery (0+ / 0-)

    i would guess heterosexual marriage - not being specifically included in the constitution - must not be valid either. Perhaps, if straights want to get married they should have a constitutional amendment. There is a word for what you say, Senator. It's "sophistry" which is Greek for bullshit.

  •  Cowardly dodge, that's all that was. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    LG is a sniveling, cowardly, piece of shit and he proved it to us all yet again.  Pathetic.

    "Give to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." - Robert G. Ingersoll

    by Apost8 on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 05:52:05 AM PST

  •  The State does not make a gift (0+ / 0-)

    of human rights. The language has always been "Congress shall make no law" that stands in the way of fundamental human rights. The fact that the state doesn't recognize those rights does not mean the rights vanish.

    Just wanted to point that out, because I think it is important to remember. We are not supplicants to the whims of benevolent royalty.

    "YOPP!" --Horton Hears a Who

    by Reepicheep on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 08:00:16 AM PST

  •  McCain: So creepy (0+ / 0-)

    Really cannot tolerate that carbon unit.

    "Sell 'crazy' someplace else, we're all stocked up here." -Melvin Udall

    by hoof32 on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 09:56:41 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site