The Family Research Council, established by James Dobson and headed up by Gary Bauer until Tony Perkins took the helm, is one of those of “family values” conservative lobbying groups whose membership the GOP clown car candidates have been courting so desperately. Perkins and his organization is on speed-dial at the Bush White House.
FRC gets my quote of the day award for this gem….
In Rhode Island, a same-sex couple married in Massachusetts is seeking a divorce; because their marriage was not recognized in R.I., when they filed for divorce, it is now in the courts to decide whether it can be dissolved there.
FRC decided to weigh in on the matter by filing a brief to argue that the marriage cannot be recognized (even though there is no law in R.I. banning same-sex marriage), citing this unhinged thinking:
“Following the logic of the appellants and their supporters, man/animal marriage and man/deceased woman marriage must be permitted under Rhode Island law simply because the General Assembly has not expressly prohibited it.”Tony and Co., when you are able to explain how animals and corpses can grant consent to enter a union of any kind, please let us know.
I’d love to hear the GOP candidates comment on this kind of rhetoric coming from one of its allies in the fight to restore family values to this great nation.
Perkins, by the way, gets bonus family values points for having paid $82K to David DuKKKe for his mailing list.
29 Responses to “Family Research Council: same-sex marriage = marrying a corpse”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
This is a fun case–you’ve got the AG saying RI has to recognize marriages from MA, you’ve got the Gov arguing they don’t, and the lege with competing bills–one to recognize and the other to bar marriage equality–neither of which will move forward.
How about carpetbaggers like the FRC stay the hell out of New England. We’re perfectly capable of working things out without Southern Baptists agitators coming in here and riling up our straight folks.
God, that argument sounds worse every time I hear it from them. Hopefully it’s jumped the crazy shark this time?
The fundies DO like to dream up some kinky sex pairings, though, don’t they?
mass: Not kinky enough. I’m thinking that, hell, by extension, we’ll have to allow a dog to marry a corpse. Or how about a woman who really loved her pet dog, and marries it after it’s deceased and preserved in the entrance of her home?
I mean, it’s not expressly forbidden, is it?
Gads, these people are idjits with no understanding of the word “consent.”
That’s because consent is meaningless in their worldview.
There is marital, heterosexual sex (good, even if it’s bad), and there is every other form of sex (evil, nasty, hot, oh so tempting, “Yikes a black man!”) in their worldview. To them, gay sex is equivalent to bestiality and necrophilia. The all fall in the “evil” category.
We really are operating in different realities.
Maybe they believe only one party has to say yes for a marriage (I wouldn’t be surprised)?
That won’t even get a pass in Wisconsin now.
And what do you want to bet that these are the same people who yammer on about how “promiscuous” gays are—you know, the folks they don’t want to allow to marry.
I suppose that animal marriages are an obvious outcome of SSM for groups that don’t see women as full adults able to legally consent to stuff and sign contracts.
For the rest of us, this argument is hilarious. I’m sure that my dogs aren’t capable of giving legal consent or understanding a contract. But if it becomes true that they can, I would like to start building their credit ratings as soon as possible. Not to mention writing them off as dependents on my taxes.
Any chance it’s just a coincidence that the FRC council phrasing equates “woman” with “animal” and “deceased woman”? It’s not “person + animal” or “man + corpse”: it’s specifically “man + animal” and “man + deceased woman.”
Yeah, I didn’t think so, either.
Same sex marriages aren’t hurting my het marriage, but assholes like these are. Sicko nutters.
Gay marriage has NEVER hurt anyone, except for the Christofascists who oppose equality at every turn.
How do they work around the classic “until death do you part” line? (I’m sure there are wits on here who can take that and run with it… I’ve never been queen of snappy one-liners)
And are there many people out there campaigning for the right to marry their doberman pinchers? Really?? Didn’t think so.
I’d really like it if a politician would respond to this claptrap by saying something like “we have real issues to adress here with real people and families affected. Let’s leave your interesting fantasies out of it until and unless they are manifested in the real world”. Let’s get on with the real problems and leave these strange sick fantasies where they belong, off the public stage.
They’re gonna have to allow for same sex marriages if I marry my dog/pug…we’re both a pair of middle-aged, pudgy short-haired bitches, equally addicted to licorice pastels, and she refuses to sleep with anyone else.
Gads, these people are idjits with no understanding of the word “consent.”
Dontcha know, consent is irrelevant, because the husband is the head of his wife just as Christ is head of the congregation. The idea that anyone other than the patriarch gets a say is anathema to these assholes.
If the fundies really wanna do something to advance heterosexual marriage, maybe they’ll consider giving this heterosexual some $$$ that way he and his fiancee can marry and have a big enough reception to invite all of her relatives and his friends (his relatives live out of town, so they probably won’t come) so they don’t have to live with “you didn’t invite me to your wedding” for the rest of their lives? That can put a lotta stress on a marriage, ya know (as can bills) — stress that can be avoided (resulting in a more stable marriage) if the reception were paid for by a generous gift
Fundies — y’all wanna strengthan marriage? Why don’t ya put your money where your mouths are!
erm…don’t you think that really, the extension of the court’s logic would be more along the lines
Because its not actually saying same-sex marriages have to be either performed or given the benefits of marriage outside of the states where they were performed AFAIK, simply that they can be ended. Is the FRC now saying they are against ending marriages between a man and a corpse?
If I marry my dog, can I get in on his health insurance? That vet insurance is WAY cheaper than what I pay for my own.
Consent is totally irrelevant to those living a Christian life.
1) If you’re not married, there’s nothing you need to be consenting to.
2) if you are married, the husband is supposed to be loving the wife above and beyond his own body, and so would never force her. The wife is supposed to be submitting and would not say no for things like petulance and manipulation, but only for real health reasons.
So, now I’m a dead dog. Sigh. It was bound to happen with that lot of sadobeastonecrophiliacs.
Nice try for contributions, DAS. Good luck to ya.
But all yer gonna be offered by a fundie is a blow job in a public restroom.
But all yer gonna be offered by a fundie is a blow job in a public restroom. - mass
So fundies are as afraid of red-heads as that Allen-feller is of African-Americans? Or would they be second-hand afraid of me ‘cause my fiancee is African-American?
Wouldn’t it be better for a man to be able to marry his dog or his dead wife or his dead dog or his Real Doll, rather than just living in sin?
Actually, I thought about it and decided I can’t marry my dog- she started practicing birth control while still quite young by getting spayed. That slut.
In fact, I am now off to picket the vet clinic for their abortion and birth control practices. Next is to write threatening letters to Bob Barker, that sick bastard. Tah-tah!
Would somebody PUHLEEZE think of da puppiez an kittiez??
“Family Research Council: Same-sex marriage=marrying a corpse.”
Well i did hear that Andrew Sullivan was getting married.
Thank you! Thank you! Pandagon audiences are the best audiences in the world!
Now, now, DAS. You know this is a both/and blog, not an either/or one. They’ll be asking you for 2 blowjobs.
No, no. They’d be offering to PAY for two blowjobs.
Sorry, did anyone else think of Clerks when they read this?
“My mom’s been fucking a dead guy for 30 years, I call him dad.”
Ah shoot, since I’m already mostly off topic, have you seen this: NYT: After Foreclosure, a Big Tax Bill From the IRS
Subprime lending gets people coming and going, nice.
That’d better be a joke, because if that worthless fuckwit can find a man and I can’t, there is definitely something wrong with the world.
Then again, a friend was in P-Town last week and met that other worthless fuckwit Chris Crain, and he’s got one.
I might as well go straight.
That’s because consent is meaningless in their worldview.
Well, that’s just the whole thing. They think that once you’re married, a woman has no right to say “no” to sex with her husband. They believe that, by definition, it’s impossible for a husband to rape his wife.