Good As You

If he really believed his own rhetoric, he would have to oppose the government standing in the way of the various religious institutions that wish to conduct same-sex marriages.

IF marriage is a religious institution, and the Federal govt. has no business "redefining" [sic] it, then it also has no business defining it, nor even promoting or sanctioning it. In other words, according to Demint's logic, no govt, state or federal should have anything to do with marriage at all!

But then again, we're talking about civil marriage, aren't we?

Is he also stating that heterosexuals who don't subscribe to any particular religion should also be barred from civil marriage? Fail.

In this case, if your breath already stinks, a DeMint will make it even worse.

“Marriage is a religious institution."

Which religion - oh wait, it must be Biblical (christianity).

In that case there are over one dozen different "definitions" of marriage.

•He doesn't think the federal government has the right to weigh in, unless, apparently, it's for an FMA (which he supported).

Why would the blatant hypocrisy surprise you?

Ha! I love that he asserts that marriage is a religious instuition and that the federal government has no business redefining what it is. Then why Mr. Pepper-de-mint has the government defined marriage as the union between one man and one woman? I guess ya' like that the federal government has overstepped their bounds there huh? I wish that people would stop making same-sex marriage some moral holier than thou issue. It's a civil rights isssue. I don't want to get married in a Baptist Church or have the Pope bless my marriage, I just want the same rights all those hetero's get. Oh, and Mr. Pepper-de-mint, the thought of a homosexual as president makes you sick, that's about how I feel knowing someone like you is sitting in the senate making important decisions about my life.

I seriously know how pathetic the lives of these christian freaks are. As I make the most of my life skydiving, learning even more theoretical mathematics, enjoying my racing stable and my one and only sister (the other is a southern baptist - no need to explain that we haven't communicated in two decades) it almost makes me sad that these people have wasted their lives.

Did I say "almost?"

I take that back. These pathetic excuses for human beings deserve to live lives of hatred.

It must be worse than hell.

I am giving my vote to any candidate Senator DeMint did not endorse.

I think the Republicans have potential if they focus away from the social issues, young people aren't buying much of it these days.

I hope the Republicans get under 35 US Senate seats and keep on losing until they realize what is wrong with them.

I do refuse to vote Democratic, but I will vote Libertarian if there is ever any more DeMint acolytes running in my area.

In California Chuck DeVore (DeMint endorsed) is going to be eaten alive by Boxer if he wins the nomination. But Carly is going to be eaten alive by Boxer for her lackluster skills at HP. Boxer is one lucky dog.

Senator DeMint: “Governments should not be in the business of promoting a behavior that’s proven to be destructive to our society.”

He's right. Government should not be promoting bigotry. While there is no evidence that homosexuality is destructive to our society, there is plenty of evidence that bigotry is destructive.

The only "evidence" the DeMinted crowd can cite is really along the lines of: The presence of homosexuality in society bothers me and my friends, therefore homosexuality is destructive.

Richard, he *is* right that homosexuality is destructive to civilization. It shatters every illusion of cultural power he has. Derrick Jensen put it best:

"The realization [of why many people hate homosexuals] came, oddly enough, when I was listening to a military spokesperson outlining reasons gays should not be allowed into the military [...] His main reason was that it would destroy the chain of command. 'Can you imagine what would happen,' he asked, obviously rhetorically, 'if a private had sex with a captain? The captain would no longer have any authority.'

"It was clear from the context his point was not intimacy, but rather penetration. If the inferior penetrated the superior, the superior would no longer be such. I suddenly understood what a lot of feminists have been saying for many years, that within our system, sexuality is an act of power, with a fucker, and a fucked.

"And in a culture where men consider themselves superior to women, men fucking women is a sign that all is well with the world. Feminist author Catharine MacKinnon put this as succinctly as possible: 'Man fucks woman, subject verb object.' Any deviation from that behavior - And homosexuality is certainly not the only way to deviate - chips away at the illusions that it's natural for men to rule women and that it's natural to manifest this rule through sex (as opposed to 'using' sex for pleasure and communication, is I may venture a wild and crazy idea).

"Recognizing that our most intimate relationships need not be based on power points toward an even more dangerous possibility, that all of our relationships can have as their basis pleasure and communication: that they can consist of communion."