Skip to comments.Gohmert: Pro-Gay ‘Marriage’ Judges ‘Need Some Basic Plumbing Lessons’
Posted on 01/26/2014 6:38:39 PM PST by Olog-hai
Liberal federal judges who have ruled against state laws barring same-sex marriages, essentially arguing that there is no biological evidence to support the idea of marriage between a man and a woman, need some basic plumbing lessons, said Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), himself a former state district judge for Texass 7th judicial district and chief justice of Texass 12th Court of Appeals. [ ]
In the Oklahoma case on Jan. 14, U.S. District Judge Terence C. Kern ruled that Oklahomas constitutional amendment limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. (Kern was nominated to his post in 1994 by President Bill Clinton.) The ruling by U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby on Dec. 20 in Utah followed the same lines.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
It’s really simple.
If the entire human species turned gay tomorrow, then the entire human species is finished.
Fish have more sense than humans.
Birds have more sense than humans.
Mankind ceases to impress.
Not only plumbing, but basic electricity too.
So are the republicans demanding that he resign yet?
I didn’t think anyone was getting married any more. I thought everyone just lived with their “fiancés”. Before long, it will only be gays who are tying the knot, and their children, whether adopted or conceived through artificial means, will be “legitimate” while children of heterosexual unions will be illegitimate. Brave new world - strange new world.
True and simple
Doesn’t sound to me like he said anything really much different from what Dave Agema said.
The only difference is that Louie Gomert is nationally known and the pantywaists in the GOP would need to grow a set to demand that he step down.
Just because a judge or a town clerk pronounces two people married doesn’t make it so in God’s eyes the only judge that really counts
god help us if that meteor hits and we have to build a space Noah’s Ark....guess what kind of a couple are going to get on the ship first to save the human race..... sounds like a bad comedy movie
I love it!
I’m at the waffle house and we are all laughing are arses off.you go louie
We Texans really do like our Louie Gohmert! He doesn’t beat around the bush and just speaks common sense.
Bingo.....try to do plumbing with 2 MALE pipes.....DOESN”T WORK!!
Such rhetoric is fun but irrelevant.
Words in and of themselves are symbols of ideas. As with all other symbols, they have no inherent meaning. They have only the meaning people assign to them.
The problem is that a very large and rapidly growing percentage of the population assigns a different meaning to the symbol/word “marriage” than the traditional one. It is my expectation, though not my desire, that this group will soon be a majority, and then an increasing majority.
At the root of this issue is that America, as a democratic nation, worships majority opinion, and always has. See Tocqueville.
A very large percentage of those who previously opposed homosexuality and gay marriage did so simply because it was the majority opinion. Now that this has, or shortly will have, flipped, these same people who have no other vasis for their opinions, will flip with it. Greatly accelerating the speed in change of opinion.
Personally, I expect, though do not approve, that in 5 years a considerable majority of states will allow gay marriage. In the next 10 years I expect a Supreme Court ruling making its recognition a constitutional right.
This is at root a cultural issue. In any democratic society the laws merely reflect the culture, generally with a considerable lag time. Changes begin in the culture and move to the legal and political realms. It is, at least to me, obvious that conservatives abandoned the cultural realm at least 50 years ago, mostly in understandable disgust.
But this of course left the field unchallenged to the enemies of our society. We’ve been living on our inherited cultural capital, which was immense, but it’s pretty much used up by this point.
No; they all have meaning beyond what people “assign”. There’s a reason why the Bible says “Death and life are in the power of the tongue” (Prov. 18:21)civilizations have risen and fallen on mere words.
Sorry, I disagree. The concepts for which words stand do indeed have such power, but not the words themselves, which are mutable in the extreme.
200 and some years ago the world changed when T. Jefferson wrote, “All men are created equal.”
But it was not the words themselves that changed the world, it was the ideas behind them, as can be seen by the fact that these words could be, and have been, translated into just about every language on earth.
I presume you will agree with me that “marriage” does not mean to the average 20 year old what it means to you and me. As with all words, “marriage” carries a huge freight of allusions and connotations and implications with it. And for “marriage” those are most definitely in the process of changing.
You might not like it, and I know I don’t. But 20 or 50 years from now it is likely the term will mean to very few people what it does to you and I today.
I think that is very sad, but I also think it is a (probable) fact.
Just reread my previous post to you and realized it was a good deal most positive than I had intended.
In practical terms there is a great deal of overlap between symbols, such as words, and their referents.
What I was trying to say was not that your post was wrong, which is how I think I came across, but rather that it’s not as simple as that.
The term “marriage,” for instance, describes an astonishing variety of human customs across the planet and across thousands of years of history. What it means to you or to me is not what it meant to King Solomon or Genghis Khan, or Henry VIII for that matter.
Our own personal perspective is not necessarily that of the universe.
I confess, as a Libertarian, I can’t get upset about gay marriage, since I really value personal freedom and the separation of church and state. If someone belongs to a religion that forbids it, then that’s their choice, and if another religion allows it between consenting adults, then go for it. I don’t care about gays in the military, getting married, etc., so long as it ain’t mandatory that I participate, because that doesn’t happen to be my thing.:)
I agree that the definition of “marriage” has changed vastly through the centuries. What’s the quote I read recently? “The fact that you can’t sell your daughter for three goats and a cow means we’ve already redefined marriage.”
Kinda true, no? If what some other posters say is true, that “marriage” is only valid based on what God says, then let each religion have their ceremonies before God, let the legal part be something separate, and then come the afterlife we’ll find out who was right.
That’s my LIbertarian view on it, FWIW.
Let me explain why I don’t entirely agree.
The first reason is that your live-and-let-live approach will not be permitted by the homo-fascists, as we are already beginning to see. Tolerance, which by definition implies some disapproval, will not be tolerated. Only enthusiastic agreement and approval will be allowed in the public square.
The second is a variant of that old progressive standby, the Precautionary Principle. This calls for the prohibition of the introduction of any chemical of process until those who want to use it have demonstrated that it will NOT create environmental problems. Let’s leave to one side that doing so is just impossible since it is impossible to prove a negative.
The idea behind PP is that in a complex system side effects of any change may be greater than the primary effects and should be considered before allowing changes to the system. This is, by progressives, normally applied only to the physical environment.
But why shouldn’t it, or a variant, be applied to the cultural/social environment? Is there a more complex environment in existence?
Yet liberals insist that we can make random changes indefinitely without incurring disastrous results. Nothing is more foundational to any society than its marriage customs. In fact, probably the primary way anthropologists classify societies is by marriage customs. Yet we, in our arrogance, assume we can tamper with the foundations of our society as we please without causing disaster.
Interesting thoughts. I can’t say I agree (but polite disagreement is acceptable). In my career circle there are many gay men and women, and while I suppose they would prefer acceptance over tolerance, nothing I have seen shows that they want much more than to be allowed to live their lives as they see fit. Their whole beef with the legality of marriage has had to do with legal protections, etc. With the myriad of religions practicing in this country, all with different ideas of what marriage is, the roles the participants are means to inhabit, the rules contained therein, and how all these rules have changed tremendously even in the last 50-75 years.....I don’t see that this will make much of a difference.
You are right about unintended consequences, and I am all for the precautionary principle when it comes to the physical world/environmental concerns. I guess...when it comes to the gay marriage thing.....sorry, Libertarian that I am....I haven’t heard any convincing “worst case scenarios” that really ruffle my feathers. They mostly seem hyperbolic and fear based.
I recognize I’m probably an anomaly on this board. There are a lot of issues here I can agree with wholly, but others I don’t. Hopefully there isn’t a purity test I have to pass to post respectfully on this subject.
So THAT'S what happened to the unicorns...
Gay marriage is just one of the many assaults on traditional values. Personally I think those values are the glue that holds our (or any other) society together.
When enough of the glue has been destroyed, it is quite possible, IMO, that the society will suddenly and dramatically self-destruct.
I hope you’re right, that our society is infinitely malleable, and that activists can adjust it to suit their whims without drastic negative consequences.
But I doubt it. Are you familiar with “critical theory?” Whether they realize it or not, CT is behind all modern attacks on traditional values by progressives.
But CT does not have a goal or a state towards which it works and is then satisfied that eutopia has been reached.
When is achieves goal A, there isn’t even a pause before expressing outrage at situation B, and so forth. IOW, they will NEVER be happy. Institutions and practices are ALL to be destroyed. An implacable enemy cannot be appeased, he can only be fought and defeated. Or you can lose the battle and be destroyed yourself.
IMO, most American think we can still give in on gay marriage or whatever the issue du jour is and they’ll be satisfied and leave us alone. But that’s not an option. They’re like the Bond villain when asked if he expects Bond to talk. “No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die.”
Your mileage, of course, may vary, and I respect people with honest but different opinions. I do not, however, respect the critical theorists, who are, I believe, the most deadly enemies of humanity.
Quickly, regarding the critique of CT, whether progressives have end goals, etc...
Can we honestly say that any ideology is ever satisfied? Are you ever satisfied? Was there ever a utopian time where everything was as it should be? Every cause moves from one cause to another, towards whatever they think is the ideal. There are those within the Libertarian movement far more zealous than I who would essentially abolish nearly all forms of government, which I don’t agree with. So as one piece is defunded or dismantled or weakened, they are quickly moving on to the next, in pursuit of their ideal. This is the tension that exists between ideologies. Both sides ultimately see the other as seeking to destroy.
Are you ever satisfied?
No, but I can envision a world in which all are treated equally and have a fair right to compete to get ahead. That would satisfy me, though of course in reality such a condition will never be achieved.
CT, by definition, cannot envision a world that would satisfy it. It is solely an oppositional movement. Its goal is to destroy, not caring what replaces the institution brought down.
And in your opinion the Progressive movement is nihilistic?
For me, I can’t envision a perfect system, a perfect ideology, because humans are messy. Emotions and wants and animal instincts are messy and we’re a messy race. So I think both sides of the equation are going to be continually battling it out, with some convinced the other side is only concerned with destruction. I know Progressives who think that of Conservatism/LIbertarianism/etc. As such, and because my line of work has me in the midst of many progressives, I see that they aren’t bent on nihilistic destruction. They just have some different values, different world views, and different solutions. In all my years, I’ve never encountered anyone hell bent on perpetual destruction. Only a few anarchists who were really just acting out, honestly. From what I can see, in the same way that you can envision a world where everyone is treated equally and have a fair right to compete to get ahead, so do many others who call themselves Progressives. Oftentimes the ideal vision isn’t what differs, but agreement on how that occurs. Personally, I’m more interested in the commonalities than the differences. Seems more in line with the Christian teachings I admire.
All I can suggest is some reading on the Critical Thinking movement. They are quite explicit about proclaiming the need to criticize society. They however, see no need to provide alternatives or goals for societal improvements.