Let’s have a gander at what some of the democrats are saying about the vote in the House today on the bill that would prevent Federal Courts from requiring one state to accept the gay marriage license of another.
“This debate is about a national election,” Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, said in opposing the bill. “We are playing with fire with this bill, and that fire could destroy the nation we love.”
To say “we are playing with fire” is one thing, to say “that fire could destroy the nation we love” is nonsensical. How, exactly, would this proverbial fire destroy the nation we love?
“I rise in defense of the Constitution, in defense of the separation of powers,” said House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat. “What’s next? No judicial review of laws that restrict freedom of speech or religion?”
Considering that freedom of religion has become freedom from religion I think we’re well on our way, but in a respect Rep. Hoyer isn’t thinking of. In fact, he commits the fallacy of false alternatives by lobbing this rhetorical hand grenade. There are obviously other alternatives than “no judicial review of laws that restrict freedom of speech or religion.”
As an irrelevant and uncharitable aside, I’d just like all of you to know I think “Steny Hoyer” is a dorky name.
Is it really necessary to add personal insult to your arguments? There are certainly conservative Republicans that could be said to have dorky names. Orrin Hatch anyone? Zell Miller (I know he’s not officially a Republican, but still…*) anyone?
*I’m not saying this as a way of insulting Zell; I think it’s a good thing, except that he’s unwilling to make formal the de facto divorce he’s had with the Dems (which was a lot more irritating in the time period between Jumping Jim Jeffords’ defection and the GOP’s retaking of the Senate in the 2002 elections than it has been since).
Mitt Romney is another one.
You can do better than “Orrin Hatch” if you want to think of dorky Republican lawmakers’ names:
— there’s the inapt combination of Michigan Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (with its simultaneous images of 19th century abolitionist firebrands and Horshack going “oooh, ooooh …. Mr. McCotter … ooooh”);
— there’s the unpronounceables — Reps. Todd Tiahrt of Kansas and Rodney Frelinghuysen of New Jersey;
— there’s the pair of representatives from Virginia; one named Goode, who didn’t go to Starbucks, and one named Goodlatte, who did;
— and there’s the dorkiest GOP name of all — Sen. Michael “you better pronounce it right” Crapo of Idaho.
Olympia Snowe-job
Steny Hoyer
Hoyer Steny
They are interchangable as first and last names.
A Kansan informs me that “Tiahrt” is pronounced “TI-hart.” Don’t forget Minnesota’s GOP governor, Tim Pawlenty.
This law is well-intended but would be ineffective. The Supreme Court’s “mystery of life” reasoning is a nuke that they will use to vaporize anything short of a Constitutional amendment. Only specific Constitutional text can rein in the Supreme Court, because they have usurped radical autonomy over natural reason.
They won’t respect anything but the only counter-nuke the other branches have-amending the Constitution itself. Just watch if this bill becomes law, they’ll say gay peoples’ “right to their view of the mystery of life” trumps any state interest in statutorily defining marriage as including one man and one woman.
That’s why only a Human Life Amendment will bring a satisfactory end to the abortion license, but that’s another discussion.
You think Mitt’s a funny name? He uses that — his middle name, which comes from part of his family — because his first name is Willard.
Maybe a law could be passed restricting jurisdiction over applying the “full faith and credit” clause to marriage to the Supreme Court itself.
I believe the courts would have to respect it.
You could make a case that running the same-sex “marriage” issue through various district and appellate courts could create chaos and serious problems for many people.
The Democrats might even buy that argument.
Then if the SC rules the wrong way on the issue, the case for an amendment becomes clear.