Monday, December 14, 2009

DeMint cringes at thought of a gay president

Posted by Greg Hambrick on Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 1:11 PM

Sen. Jim DeMint's "Back-to-Basics" approach for saving conservatism apparently puts a lot of stock into homophobia.

In a Bloomberg interview, DeMint didn't just stop at opposition to gay marriage like most right-wingers, he went all the way.

The comments came under the subhead, "Time of Terrorism" (let us hope that was artistic license by the columnist and not by DeMint's design).

He takes a hard line on social issues, passionately anti- abortion and pro-guns. He has been most outspoken as an opponent of any form of gay marriage.

“Marriage is a religious institution. The federal government has no business redefining what it is,” DeMint says. This is one issue where he doesn’t support states’ rights; state government shouldn’t have the right to permit gay marriage: “Governments should not be in the business of promoting a behavior that’s proven to be destructive to our society.”

He cringes at the notion of a gay or lesbian president: “It would be bothersome to me just personally because I consider it immoral.

Tags: , ,

Comments (20)

Showing 1-20 of 20

Add a comment

If marriage is a religious institution and not a civil contract, why do we go to a civil court for divorce and not a religious institution? Why do the clergy performing the ceremony say by the power invested in me by the State of ___ (fill in the blank) when performing the ceremony? Why does the state issue the marriage license and have laws setting legal age of marriage? This doesn't sound very religious to me. Maybe DeMint would feel more comfortable living in Uganda where they are about to pass a law making homosexuality a capital offense and not turning in a homosexual punishable by up to 7 years in jail. This law in Uganda was influenced by a group of Americans belonging to C-Street House in Washington DC. A group, whose members include many politicians, Such as Senator Grassley, Senator Graham, Governor Sanford, Senator Ensign, and of course Senator DeMint. If these men controlled our government (which they are trying to do), would they pass a similar law here? If DeMint cannot represent ALL of our citizens, he should represent none.

report   
Posted by charlestowne2 on December 14, 2009 at 2:20 PM

I am NOT a "conservative"; in fact, I am a fairly liberal Democrat. But even we liberals have to set boundaries of decency.

DeMint is absolutely RIGHT when it comes to gay "marriage". The bottom line is, homosexuality IS wrong - on many levels. For them to now suddenly say it is their "right" to redefine a centuries-old tradition such as marriage is patently absurd. Obviously, we cannot prevent them from partaking in this immoral activity - but we do have to draw the line somewhere. What gays promote IS destructive to society as a whole, and we should be trying to eradicate this scourge, not legitimize it. Now days, it is spreading like the plague - men are "coming out" in droves - and many otherwise straight women are being driven into lesbian relationships due to the fact that there are few "real men" left. It's a sad, sad situation these days, and this gay "marriage" nonsense is a major contributing factor.

report   
Posted by Shelley on December 14, 2009 at 4:57 PM

The fourteenth Amendment guarantees me equal access to the law and equal protection under the law. I am not required to submit to any additional layer of legal or moralistic approval or disapproval to receive it. My equality is guaranteed. YOUR RIGHTS END WHERE MINE BEGIN!

report   
Posted by Chucktown Charlie on December 14, 2009 at 5:25 PM

drdanfee
Well, at least these comments suggest clearly that queer folks who happen to be citizens of South Carolina should not look to DeMint for fairness, corrected flat earth notions of being gay, or political representation. That cat is clearly out of the interview bag?

report   
Posted by drdanfee on December 14, 2009 at 5:51 PM

Hypothetically, if there was a religion that allowed for gay marriage, there wouldn't be a problem, since we have freedom of religion in this country. The issue begs the question, does one truly have said freedom or merely the freedom to worship in a system of Jim Demint's image?

report   
Posted by Friendly Moralist on December 14, 2009 at 11:24 PM

I am not an activist by any means, I've even stayed out of this whole debate for a very long time, but some of these comments just really get to me. Marriage has turned into a legal contract more than a religious institution. Several religions and ministers are willing to perform gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender marriages. If this is the case, where is the problem? It's because there is no true separation of church and state. Why does the government care what a church or religion decides to do? Sure they don't recognize the marriage performed in the church but why not? You need to get a marriage license from the local government and file it and all that stuff. You don't even have to be married in a church or by a clergy! To me that sounds like a legal issue, so why can't GLBT be afforded the same rights as heterosexual couples under the law? My issue is that everyone who opposes GLBT marriage claims that marriage is a religious institution but it clearly is not, not if it can be done in a court house and not by a clergy.

I don't know the statistic, but I'm sure the divorce rate for heterosexual couples is over 50% still. Apparently heterosexual couples are enough to destroy the institution of marriage all on their own without any help from the GLBT community. Why not allow those who want to be married the chance? Maybe the divorce rate would decrease for a change.

Another point that people fail to realize is the economic impact of GLBT marriage. Weddings are a huge industry, people spend a lot of money on all of the hoopla surrounding it. If GLBT are allowed to marry that will mean an increase in church revenues (if that's where they get married), reception halls, bands/DJ's, formal wear, florists, decorations, retailers (bridal registry), and so on. That would be one way to stimulate the economy.

report   
Posted by brybry on December 15, 2009 at 8:40 AM

@shelley:

Trolling a citypaper comment section? Edgy.

report   
Posted by ingredientd on December 15, 2009 at 12:45 PM

@Friendly Moralist:

"Hypothetically, if there was a religion that allowed for gay marriage, there wouldn't be a problem, since we have freedom of religion in this country."

No hypothetical necessary. There are several christian denominations, including most recently Episcopalians, that will celebrate gay marriages, not to mention Unitarian Universalists. And their freedom to practice their religions is abridged by right-wing activists in violation of the constitution on a daily basis.

report   
Posted by jove4015 on December 15, 2009 at 1:06 PM

Racism and discrimination do not exist in libertarianism.

report   
Posted by n66178 on December 16, 2009 at 11:21 AM

I cringe at the thought of a republican president.

report   
Posted by charlestowne2 on January 4, 2010 at 5:07 PM

south carolina will NEVER be up to the times of 2010!! it's the "GOOD OL BOY SYSTEM". all you voters out there vote them OUT!!! we need some folks in office that are from up north. then things WILL CHANGE!!! what about all the cheating that goes on?? gov. sanford and all the ones in office that have not been brought to the for front, what about them?? we need to change who is in office in south carolina, and i mean all of them. or nothing will change! WE ARE ALL CHILDREN OF GOD, and god does NOT make mistakes!!!!!!!!

report   
Posted by pureitalian on February 2, 2010 at 1:22 PM

So, wait a minute. Marriage is a religious institution and the state has no right to redefine it but it uses the religious definition in the first place so that means that it must not be a completely religious thing but if it is then there must be a separation of church and state but then again there shouldn't be because that would mean we aren't a Christian nation and.....

Phew.

The more I think about it, the real Discordians in our world are Republicans.

report   
Posted by mat catastrophe on February 12, 2010 at 6:32 PM

We ARE all children of God, in the creation standpoint. That is where it ends. Speaking to the Jewish leaders, Jesus said, " Ye are of your father the devil, and his works will ye do. " Homosexualality of any kind is sin. And God says that the " wages of sin is death. " That death is not just physical death, but eternal death in a place called hell. Sorry fags, lesbo`s, and tranny`s. Live it up in this life, because your body will burned up in the lake of fire. No sucking each others penises, or having intercourse up each others rectum. No sucking or licking on each others vagina, and so on.
REVELATION!!!!! A way to solve ALL the worlds problems! Lets all turn to the homosexual lifestyle! No more children would be born! After just a few short years world hunger would go down, homelessness would become non-exhistent, unemployment would be 0%. HEAVEN ON EARTH!!!!! You homos had it right all along!!! I`m switching TODAY!!!!!!!!!
John Allen
Charlestonian ( the Holy City ) by birth.
P. S. Go SUMMEY!!!! I would not doubt that you like young men ( if not young boys at that. )

report   
Posted by John Allen on February 18, 2010 at 11:18 AM

We are all God`s children in a creation standpoint. That is where it ends. Speaking to the Jews, Jesus said, "ye are of your father the devil, and his works will ye do." Homosexuallity of ANY kind is sin, and God said, "the wages of sin is death." Not just physical death, but eternal death in a place called hell. Live it up now fags, lesbo`s, and tranny`s. When your body is burned up in the lake of fire (your soul will be in torment throughout eternity), there will no sucking on each others penises, or having intercourse in each others rectum, no sucking or licking on each others vagina, and so on.
REVELATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A solution to ALL the worlds problems!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lets ALL go HOMO!!!!!!
NO more children would be born!!!!!
In just a few short years there would be no hunger, no homelessness, and there would be 0% unemployement!!!!!
You queers had it right all along!!!!!! I`M SWITCHING TODAY!!!!!!!!!!
John Allen
Charlestonian (The Holy City ) by birth.
P.S. Go Summey!!!!!! Thank you for supporting gay pride. My intuition is that you like young men (if not young boys) anyway.

report   
Posted by John Allen on February 18, 2010 at 11:40 AM

To start this comment, I will say that I am a heterosexual male and quite happy with that status.
However - lets cut through the BS and say out loud what is driving a lot of the homophobic rhetoric - Some people truly believe that "tab A" should ONLY go into "slot B" and nowhere else!
Personally I agree with that concept, but if others want to conduct their personal lives with a different set of values I think that is their business and not the business of the State or some "moral" concept foisted on them by uninvolved outsiders.
What consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes is their business and nobody else's! -- The operative words in that statement are "consenting" and "adult".

report   
Posted by beeter on February 18, 2010 at 11:50 AM

To John Allen - CELEBRATE!!
According to your belief system, all non-heterosexuals will go to hell. This should make you happy, since you will be in heaven - unless that silly thing about "love your brothers" makes God take a second look at your eligibility. Being hateful towards those with a different set of values doesn't seem very Christian.
In any case, if you are right and those who disagree with your values are wrong, you won't have to associate with them in the afterlife - so be happy!

report   
Posted by beeter on February 18, 2010 at 12:17 PM

I usually don't like repeat commenters, but I most assuredly, as a Christian man, respect John Allen for adding even more PUNCTUATION and capitalization to his post THE second time............................. The world needs more visionaries LIKE John Allen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As for the story: a gay president would be like our black (and mixed-race) president... an example of just how boring all politicians are no matter how hard we depict them as evil and different.

report   
Posted by factoryconnection on February 18, 2010 at 2:01 PM

@ brybry

good point about the divorce rate. didn't divorce used to be a sin, too?

@ john allen

what do you care? why does demint care so much? most of the fags and lesbos i've known have been decent enough people, as have most of the straight people i've known. what harm does it do you for them to marry?

report   
Posted by theohuxtubble on February 18, 2010 at 2:27 PM

on a kind-of-related note, i just feel like this whole issue is indicitive of the hypocracy of the republican party on this issue. isn't the republican party all about less government involvement in the private lives of citizens? wouldn't "less involvement" be simply allowing person A to marry person B? let the individual churches work out what their rules are. if the greek orthodox church at which you've always wanted to have your wedding won't allow it, find another church.

for the people using the argument that marriage is an institution developed to provide a stable environment in which to raise one's young, maybe we should require all parents to marry? or at least ban divorce? and as for tax breaks being about the kids, too, what about married heteros who don't have kids? don't they get tax breaks?

look demint, if you think it's wrong and want it to be illegal because it disgusts you on a personal level, just admit that you're not capable of keeping your own moral judgements from influencing policy decisions. oh, and QUIT. please.

and before anyone responds that legalizing same-sex unions amounts to more goverment, i respond that no, failing to address an inequality that has existed for hundreds of years is not more government. it's changing with the times and admitting we, as a society, will always have room to improve. unless you're honestly willing to argue government didn't have any right to abolish slavery, too, in which case you're a moron, and i'm glad i don't have to sit in what is probably your very boring church with you every sunday. you know, because church and state are (supposed to be) separate in this country.

my suggestion: let ANYONE enter into a legal civil union, and banish the word "marriage" from government entirely. leave it up to churches/synogogues/mosques/cults/whatever to figure out who they will/won't allow to make their legal civil union holy in the eyes of God, or whomever they worship.

and yes, i will be running for senate next term.

report   
Posted by theohuxtubble on February 18, 2010 at 4:04 PM

Don't we already have a gay president ?

report   
Posted by Rex1234 on June 25, 2010 at 6:56 PM
Subscribe to this thread:
Showing 1-20 of 20

Add a comment

Classified Listings
Most Viewed

Powered by Foundation   © Copyright 2012, Charleston City Paper   RSS