Congressman: We Should ‘Prevent Those Who Commit Adultery or Get a Divorce From Running for Office’
Congressman: We Should ‘Prevent Those Who Commit Adultery or Get a Divorce From Running for Office’
Today, the House of Representative is spending the day debating a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. (It has no chance of becoming law, since the Senate rejected it last month.)
On the House floor, Rep. Lincoln Davis (D-TN) said he was opposed the amendment but only because it didn’t go far enough. (UPDATE: Davis voted in favor of the amendment.) Davis said Congress should “outlaw divorce in this country” and “outlaw adultery and make it a felony.” In addition, Davis said, “we should also prevent those who commit adultery, or get a divorce, from running for office.”
Davis said it was important to “go after the other threats to the institution” not just the threat from homosexuals. Watch it:
There are currently at least 29 divorced members of Congress. There is no official data on how many members have committed adultery.
UPDATE: Davis now says his “intent was to point out the purely partisan nature and timing of the amendment.” If so, why did he vote for it?
Transcript:
LINCOLN DAVIS: Marriage is for life, and this amendment needs to include that basic tenant. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think we should expand the scope of the amendment to outlaw divorce in this country. Going further Mr. Speaker, I believe in fidelity. Adultery is an evil that threatens the marriage and the heart of every marriage, which is commitment.
How can we as a country allow adulterers to go unpunished and continue to make a mockery of marriage? Again by doing so, what lessons are we teaching our children about marriage? I certainly think that it shows we are not serious about protecting the institution and this is why I think the amendment should outlaw adultery and make it a felony. Additionally, Mr. Speaker, we must address spousal abuse and child abuse. Think of how many marriages end in a divorce or permanent separation because one spouse is abusive.
And, Mr. Speaker, I personally think child abuse may be the most despicable act one can commit. This is why if we are truly serious about protecting marriage to the point we will amend the constitution, we should extend the punishment of abuse to prevent those who do such a hideous act from ever running for an elected position anywhere.
We should also prevent those who commit adultery, or get a divorce, from running for office. Mr. Speaker, this House must lead by example. If we want those watching on CSPAN to actually believe we are serious about protecting marriage, then we should go after the other major threats to the institution. Not just the threat that homosexuals may some day be allowed to marry in a state other than Massachusetts. An elected official should certainly lead by example.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
134 Responses to “Congressman: We Should ‘Prevent Those Who Commit Adultery or Get a Divorce From Running for Office’”
GO FOR IT!
July 18th, 2006 at 1:55 pmDamn right. The Republicans constantly bitch that gay marriage would be a threat to “traditional marriage”, but divorce and adultery are obviously REAL threats to marriage. So, if you’re going to ban threats to marriage, divorce should be at the very top of the list, way ahead of same-sex unions or gay marriage.
July 18th, 2006 at 1:57 pmThis is tongue-in-cheek, right?
…..Umm, right?
July 18th, 2006 at 1:58 pmThis ranks even above the Ohio politician putting forth a bill that says Republicans should not be allowed to adopt because they raise intolerant children. Davis’ facial expression is priceless. TRUTH IN SARCASIM.
July 18th, 2006 at 1:58 pmGod, why does yet another politician have to embarrass my home state? We’re still trying to outgrow the Scopes Monkey Trial and now we got Lamar, Frist and this douche bag spouting crap.
July 18th, 2006 at 1:59 pmSatire?
July 18th, 2006 at 2:00 pmIs this guy serious? Is there a single politician from any “Bible belt” state who isn’t a certifiable religious retard?
July 18th, 2006 at 2:00 pmThis wasn\’t tongue in cheek. He\’s serious. Watch the video.
July 18th, 2006 at 2:02 pmAbsolutely! Every R representative with such a shame in his past, must resign right now and return to the DDT bussiness, or the Fraternity or the stone from under they came!
July 18th, 2006 at 2:03 pmFinally a Democrat who knows how to fight the Republicans on their own terms. Bloody brilliant. For those criticizing this guy, you are either taking life way too seriously or your are a total moron to not see the way this guy totally undermines Repugnats arguments.
July 18th, 2006 at 2:03 pmoh, i’m sure he is quite serious… but also knows that hypocricy will prevail and, ironically, it will also save the day…
July 18th, 2006 at 2:04 pmI guess I should have watched the video, my sarcasm detector has been malfunctioning since I got my new tinfoil hat.
July 18th, 2006 at 2:05 pmWhy stop there? Let’s just pass a bill that’ll cut their nads off in a public square if they’ve ever divorced or dallied with someone you haven’t married.
July 18th, 2006 at 2:05 pmAll you guys who are lambasting Davis, I believe you are missing the point.
By pointing up the right’s obvious hypocrisy in this manner, Davis speaks against this ridiculous amendment far more elequoently than he would have if he had just followed the left’s established strategy of presenting the facts and expecting others to make an informed and rational decision (after all, that strategy doesn’t work well on Repugs, who distort their perception of the facts to fit their preconceived notions).
July 18th, 2006 at 2:06 pmonthefence - Markos hasn’t told me what to think yet…
that’s my excuse & I’m sticking to it (till Markos tells me otherwise).
July 18th, 2006 at 2:06 pmTranslation:
“We want to control your private lives, your conversations, your religious beliefs, your money, your thoughts… you can call it freedom if you like…”
July 18th, 2006 at 2:07 pmThis is sarcasm, very dryly delivered. Kudos, Davis.
July 18th, 2006 at 2:08 pmSince when has William Devane been a member of Congress?
July 18th, 2006 at 2:09 pmHere in Indiana last year the republicans tried passing a law that made it illegal for a woman to get pregnant without being married.
July 18th, 2006 at 2:09 pmGot to be Satire…
July 18th, 2006 at 2:09 pmTripMaster Monkey: they aren’t missing the point; they’re just choosing to ignore it. Everyone with half a brain should realize that his intent is to point out the ridiculousness of claiming that gay marriage is a threat to marriage but divorce isn’t.
July 18th, 2006 at 2:09 pmIs he just talking or is he proposing an amendment to the proposed constitutional amendment? The latter would be true hardball. Then you are forcing the majority to vote for unlimited divorce and adultery (negative campaign material) or else STFU and balance the budget or fix health care or do some other IMPORTANT piece of the people’s business.
Sorry, got a little excited there.
July 18th, 2006 at 2:10 pmModerated by Admin.
July 18th, 2006 at 2:11 pmOn second thought, after some judicious googling, methinks the man is serious.
Crikey.
July 18th, 2006 at 2:11 pmROFLMAO!!!!!
And the best — THE BEST — attack-by-ridicule is that which accomplishes its purpose and doesn’t reveal the tongue planted in the cheek.
This also is something that ONLY a Red-stater could pull off.
And if, in a stretch of the imagination, he isn’t doing this on purpose, then I do believe we finally have the mind control we need.
July 18th, 2006 at 2:11 pmI can’t wait to see how the republicans react.
July 18th, 2006 at 2:12 pmFrom my perspective, children learn their values at home and the values they adopt are primarily discerned in proportion to the degree of sincerity and integrity they believe exists in their parents. In this construct, the degradation of family values originates within individual families as a result of a child’s perception that their parents are inauthentic and hypocritical. It’s also important to keep in mind that nearly every homosexual is the product of a heterosexual relationship and a heterosexual family. Consequently, the fact that the vast majority of children are raised in traditional heterosexual families makes the premise that homosexuals endanger the family not only flawed, but blatantly absurd.
The family fails when parents demonstrate their own intolerance and disdain for others. It’s not uncommon for a parent to have issues with their own parents and when they live out these failed relationships, their own children are taught that it’s acceptable to choose conflict and estrangement rather than compromise and conciliation. This can take the form of a dispute with a sibling over money or the holding of a grudge against a former employer or coworker. Sometimes it’s an instantaneous conflict with the soccer coach or the store clerk. Nonetheless, all of these actions have impact.
Ultimately, the family succeeds one child at a time and that must start at home. The relationship of the Mexican couple down the street or the gay couple in the grocery store can only threaten one family…their own. Time spent obsessing about the actions of other families simply detracts from the precious time each family needs to succeed. The sooner families begin to act accordingly, the sooner the value of all families can be maximized. If and when this happens, the individual will flourish and society will endure.
Read the full article here:
http://www.thoughttheater.com
July 18th, 2006 at 2:12 pmDucktape: attack-by-ridicule
That’s beautiful. That’s exactly what it is, and that’s a perfect description.
July 18th, 2006 at 2:13 pmI vote that it’s satire
July 18th, 2006 at 2:13 pmum yea i cant tell if this dude is serious. yea he makes republican arguments about ‘protecting marriage’ look ridiculous, but um, watching the video i still didnt get the impression it was tongue-in-cheek. please o please i hope it was.
::all hail overlord markos, may death come quickly to his enemies::
July 18th, 2006 at 2:14 pmThis is fooking brilliant! Anytime right-wingers are confronted with the real threats to the institution of marriage, they hem and haw and try to change the subject. Davis is only shining a bright light on these conservative hypocrites.
July 18th, 2006 at 2:14 pmOut crazy the crazies. I was wondering if someone would do it. They should do this for a number of other issues.
July 18th, 2006 at 2:14 pmI’m sorry to say, this guy is dead serious.
July 18th, 2006 at 2:17 pmthis is what are elected, paid officials are debating. doesn’t this alone sum up the intellect of these folks? doesn’t this sum up what this reichwing admin is all about? doesn’t ANYONE see the hypocrisy and our basic civil liberties being washed away. this is absolutely obsurd. and let’s not mention the divorce rate is near what 65-70%. save the bs.
July 18th, 2006 at 2:18 pmThe guy is a Democrat. He must be trying to stop the Republicans’ top 3, McCain, Guiliani and Gingrich from running in 08. They 8 marriages between the 3 of them. Says a lot about the ‘family values’ party, huh?
July 18th, 2006 at 2:18 pmThe guy is a Democrat. He must be trying to stop the Republicans’ top 3, McCain, Guiliani and Gingrich from running in 08. They 8 marriages between the 3 of them. Says a lot about the ‘family values’ party, huh?
July 18th, 2006 at 2:18 pm[…] Via ThinkProgress, here are Rep. Lincoln Davis’s (D -TN) remarks during today’s debate over whether to protect the sanctity of marriage by amending the constitution so as to prevent gay marriage: Marriage is for life, and this amendment needs to include that basic tenant. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think we should expand the scope of the amendment to outlaw divorce in this country. Going further Mr. Speaker, I believe in fidelity. Adultery is an evil that threatens the marriage and the heart of every marriage, which is commitment. […]
July 18th, 2006 at 2:19 pmbumblebums: this guy is dead serious
Don’t be too sure. It’s very possible that the Alliance for Marriage doesn’t “get” satire.
July 18th, 2006 at 2:20 pmHe is an anti-christ as he distorts the Bible for his own means. Jesus said, “You have heard it said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’,. But I say to you, ‘whoever looks at a woman to lust after her in his heart has already committed adultry with her.’” This man is a liar and a misinterperates the his faith to his advantage and should be removed from office.
In addition Jesus says, “You have heard it said, ‘You shall not commit murder’, but I say to you, ‘whoever is even angry with a brother or sister is liable to judgement.’”
America is a land of fake christians that live lives against the very person that they proclaim as their savior. Indeed, this country is closer to that of a fornication nation than one of christians.
July 18th, 2006 at 2:21 pmSmart man.
July 18th, 2006 at 2:21 pm#5 “God, why does yet another politician have to embarrass my home state?”
Your state is an embarrassment, dude. Thanks for not voting for Gore you morons!
July 18th, 2006 at 2:22 pmHe’s from the Zell Miller wing of the party. One of the handful of nuts who should have joined the GOP a long time ago.
July 18th, 2006 at 2:22 pmI don’t think it’s exactly sarcasm or tongue-in-cheek. We’ve criticized the proposed ban on gay marriage, and said much the same thing. I think he’s sticking it to the republicans using their own twisted logic, and now backing them into a corner, to get their reaction, and to show their true hypocratic colors.
July 18th, 2006 at 2:23 pmThis is the first time that I have heard anyone in the anti-gay camp mention banning divorce. I have been waiting for that argument to arise for quite some time, since the biggest “threat” to the “sanctity” of marriage is indeed divorce. Over 50% of heterosexual marriages fail within five years. That’s a lot more damage than anything we poor gays could do to the institution.
I doubt that the GOP will support an amendment banning divorce, let alone prohibiting a divorced person from serving in public office. Most of the leadership of the GOP would have to step down were that the case. We’d never hear anything out of Gingrich (3x), Bob Barr (3x), John McCain (2x at least), etc. since they couldn’t serve. If the prohibition were expanded to include adultery then most of Congress (on both sides, I fear) would have to step down.
Let’s face it: when Congress has the luxury of “debating” a non-issue such as same-sex marriage then they are not doing their jobs!! Gas is too expensive. Iraq is a chaotic mess. War is expanding throughout the Middle East. There are real, serious problems to be faced and they want to talk about how to deny me a basic human right. What loons.
July 18th, 2006 at 2:24 pmInspired,
The plaudit preceded the recent floor statement. I think he’s a very conservative Democrat.
July 18th, 2006 at 2:25 pmThis is an old debate ploy, reductio ad absurbitum, and beautifully delivered.
July 18th, 2006 at 2:26 pmlisten, hear it? closer now, you getting it yet? there it is
July 18th, 2006 at 2:28 pm(the theme to Looney Tunes)
Notably, he does not seem to be pushing for a ban on fornication. Sex before marriage is fine…so why get married and limit yourself to just one person forever? Destruction of traditional marriage, here we come!
July 18th, 2006 at 2:32 pmbumblebums:
I realize that he’s made similar comments before. Those previous comments could have been intended as ridicule or sarcasm (as I think these are) and that they were misinterpreted by the association.
Then again, I could be wrong. He could really want to ban divorce and not be trying to make a point.
July 18th, 2006 at 2:33 pmThis is excellent.
Now hopefully my two republicans parents, whom both committed adultery and got a divorce afterwards might just wake up to the fact that they are only voting for stupid wedge issues and not for the person running for office. I am goona send them both this video.
July 18th, 2006 at 2:34 pmStickin’ it to ‘em, twisting it, then breaking it off. This would surely let the air out of this attempt to rally the base for the ‘06 elctions.
The Democrats should run with this and use it to highlight the hypocrisy in the Republican Culture of Corruption.
If they have the balls.
July 18th, 2006 at 2:34 pmSorry, extra words. Ignore “that they” in my last post.
July 18th, 2006 at 2:34 pmIt would appear, very clearly I may add, this TN Dem. can add his name to the Lieberman and Hillery list. No longer a dem and thinks he is in the running for pres…..Sad, but there are many more. Watch. read and listen…..The liers will speak their truths and it is up to us to vote them out………Blesings…….Peace and justice is the answer..
July 18th, 2006 at 2:35 pmAll this moral posturing while this same group, (D) and (R),commit some of the most immoral acts this country and the world have ever seen. please!
July 18th, 2006 at 2:36 pm#46 - You mean “reductio ad absurdum”
July 18th, 2006 at 2:36 pmWhether he’s serious or not, it’s a serious slap to the ridiculousness of the “defend marriage against homosexuality” stance. It would be great if Davis’ amendment were put to a vote and he subsequently voted against it.
July 18th, 2006 at 2:37 pmHonestly, I think the best part of this bill is that we don’t know if it’s genuine or just politics. America is in the dark, but the Republicans are in a corner.
I don’t want R’s simply dismissing this as politics.
July 18th, 2006 at 2:51 pmGenius.
July 18th, 2006 at 2:54 pmNow that is what I am talking about…Adultery was mentioned by Christ, for you christian hypocrites, much more often than homosexuality…matter of fact he didn’t address it in the Sermon on the Mount but he did mention adultery.
Go figure. I think that there should be a law limiting divorce and condemning political leaders from running if they are divorcees…
And I am a liberal Democrat Vietnam Veteran.
Vote Democrat.
July 18th, 2006 at 2:57 pmYes! Shnow them up for the hypocritical fools they are!
July 18th, 2006 at 2:59 pmWow! I can’t believe I was able to post. (mis-spelling and all)
July 18th, 2006 at 3:01 pmIs anyone else having trouble the past couple of days?
I can see how adultery destroys marriage, but why ban divorce? Surely breaking up bad marriages would not create harm to good marriages. Some people are not compatible together. Also what happens if one person is a criminal socialpath, should anyone be forced to stay married to him/her.
July 18th, 2006 at 3:08 pmJust imagine if you married Bill Frist, and found yourself tied to a cat killer. Would you want to stay married to some if you had to make sure he was never alone with the family cat.
59 Ken
July 18th, 2006 at 3:08 pmActually Christ didn’t mention homosexuality at all. The homosexuality addressed in the Bible seems to me to be “homosexual behavior” used in pagan fertility rites and for cultural indoctrination (pedantry). Christ made it clear that all the “laws and commandments” are based on the presence of love. So, in my humble Christian opinion, homosexual behavior in the context of a loving homosexual relationship is not sinful. Of course, NONE of this should matter because our laws shouldn’t be based on religious views alone.
Hey my congressman is an admitted adultrer Donnie “Choke” Sherwood. I love it!
July 18th, 2006 at 3:11 pmmarie - no problem with me… matter of fact, i’ve been so pleased with the change, since last week’s shut-down, at how speedy the comments are posted after clicking on that button…
July 18th, 2006 at 3:12 pm…but then, i got so depressed as of thursday, that i’ve been avoiding all this, except in small doses… hard habit to quit though…
Another conservative Southern Democrat.
His points are well taken… but should not be codified into law. I agree with him but think that it is a matter between a couple and the LORD, not the Congress.
July 18th, 2006 at 3:13 pmI think Ronnie Reagan was the first divorced president in our history?
July 18th, 2006 at 3:13 pmExcellent…
Rep Lincoln Davis is a truly gifted man.
July 18th, 2006 at 3:22 pmHas everyone in Washington lost their minds ? The only thing those fools in DC can manage to concentrate on is what goes on in everyone else’s bedrooms. (My guess is this is because NOTHING is going on in THEIR bedrooms). Our Representatives need to be concerned with protecting American’s Constitutional right to privacy ,and not waste time worrying about what American’s are doing with their private parts.
July 18th, 2006 at 3:50 pmAt first I thought that this was evidence that the wing-nitwits had finally gone over the edge. Then I noticed the little “D” on the screen.
It was satire, and then again it wasn’t. He was calling them on the carpet (brilliantly) for their hypocrisy. The sad/funny thing is that an awful lot (all?) of the 23% will think this is a good idea and will support his proposed amendment!
The sequay into spousal and child abuse was simply brilliant!
July 18th, 2006 at 3:58 pmWell, I guess that would put Newt Gingrich’s run for president in the crapper. Along with Rudy Guiliani’s.
July 18th, 2006 at 4:06 pmIf he’s kidding, he’s funny. If he isn’t, he’s hilarious.
My recent play (no one cares, I know) used exactly that “Every man who looks at a woman commits adultery with her in his heart” quote. That goes on to say “Any man who divorces a woman, except on grounds of unchastity, makes an adultress out of her.”
I love how Jesus says “It’s not really that bad if she CHEATS on you.”
July 18th, 2006 at 4:10 pmHey #63 PLC — I’ve often wondered about this. Being Jewish, I don’t know the New Testament at all. But from what I know of the Old Testament, homosexuality isn’t as big a no-no as some other things, and may be at the same level as wearing clothes made from a combo of linen and wool (which is strictly prohibited!). I would love to see an analysis of things declared sinful in each of the Old and New Testaments — how many mentions, how strict and stern the statement: a rating scale of some sort. My guess is that homosexuality would be at the low end of the sin scale, as you said, below adultery. Seems like it would be a good way to take on the fake morality of the extreme rightnuts.
July 18th, 2006 at 4:13 pmDavis is absolutely right. But the Bush Republicans probably don’t even know the meaning of the word “hypocrasy”.
When over half of all marriages end in divorce, logic dictates that divorce is therefore a greater threat to the institution of marriage than allowing less than 6% of the population become eligible to marry, of which probably less than 3% would then get married if they could.
July 18th, 2006 at 4:15 pm73 Tamar
July 18th, 2006 at 4:24 pmI see you like the restrictions on cloth also - I’ve thought maybe we should have a “Defense of Fabric Act” to protect the purity of cloth. Your scale idea is actually rather intriguing. The problem I see is language - all the translations of sacred writings, taken out of context, would make it difficult to objectively rate words like “abomination”, “immoral”, and the like. Just on pure number of mentions in the Bible, homosexuality is vastly unimportant. Isn’t it also rather interesting that it is my fellow Christians who seem to scream the loudest against homosexuality whereas your fellow Jews don’t, given that we Christians consider Judaism the root of our faith?
[…] UPDATE: This is how to handle wedge issues: Follow the logic to its logical conclusion. LINCOLN DAVIS: Marriage is for life, and this amendment needs to include that basic tenant. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think we should expand the scope of the amendment to outlaw divorce in this country. Going further Mr. Speaker, I believe in fidelity. Adultery is an evil that threatens the marriage and the heart of every marriage, which is commitment. […]
July 18th, 2006 at 4:26 pmAny who would undertake moral authority over others must consider themselves gods. The moral crisis in this country has nothing to do with the sexuality of the constituients(who have been over exposed to media exploitation promoting promiscuity, using sex to sell product and loosening of personal values via extreme interconection of sex and violence in films) so that making such vices illegal would be on a par with banning weapons, gun control. Who would be howling then? Your personal relationship with your higher power should determine your actions, not some whore of a congressman. Although it would be great if it was satrical, what a hoot.
July 18th, 2006 at 4:40 pmAny reaction from Rep. Barney?
July 18th, 2006 at 4:41 pmBarney Frank was on the House floor today expressing views of the people who can think.
July 18th, 2006 at 4:53 pmHe’s serious. I just called his office in DC to find out. He thinks divorce should be a felony so that divorced people, being felons, can’t run for office.
This is what passes for a Democrat these days down here in Tennessee.
July 18th, 2006 at 4:59 pmPLC — Defense of Fabric Act! I love it !!!! Only problem is I’m weaving a mixed wool/silk blanket for my off-to-college daughter. But I don’t think there’s a prohibition against that particular mixture. So I’m probably biblically correct….
July 18th, 2006 at 5:06 pmI don’t know about Orthodox Jews and homosexuality — but I think they simply don’t think it’s relevent. Reformed Jews, like me, have no problem with gay marriage, etc. Our Rabbi was doing a conversion for a lesbian colleague of mine who had married her partner (though not an official marriage) and wanted to become Jewish.
While they’re at it they should make it to the only way you can get Viagra or Birth control is if you have a marrage license. Non married peolpe shouldn’t be having pre-marital sex.
July 18th, 2006 at 5:10 pmConsidering the guy is a Dem, I think it’s ironic so many people assumed he was a Republican. One, gay marriage is cool, and I think it is stupid that they don’t have the right to have the same protections that hetero married couples get. However, people should also respect that others don’t agree with that. We are a country of free thinkers, but not when it comes to the bedroom. We are so backwards that it’s not even funny. There are jackasses on both sides of the aisle in Congress and it’s only made worse when people don’t have an open mind. Look at some of your comments and really think about what you are saying. Not all people can be represented fully by so few. However, we can make our voices heard if we want to. Go ahead call your congressman/woman and give them an earful. Go to a rally, vote!
July 18th, 2006 at 5:11 pmIf this screwball was serious, let him hook up with my recently widowed ex-wife, he would change his mind about divorce measured in nanoseconds.
July 18th, 2006 at 6:19 pmLincoln Davis, sir, you rock. That was a brilliant tactic…
July 18th, 2006 at 6:32 pmThis was tongue in cheek. Make the law so outrageous that no one will vote for it. Happy to see the Dems using their brains.
July 18th, 2006 at 6:40 pmHere in Indiana last year the republicans tried passing a law that made it illegal for a woman to get pregnant without being married.
Comment by Gerald Gibson — July 18, 2006 @ 2:09 pm
That’s a good one… if this law had passed, what would happen to the woman if she got pregnant and wasn’t married? Did they plan to lock her up? What would happen to the baby? Or would this justify an abortion? Are there electrical charges going on in their brains or are their brains just a blob of gray matter without any activity?
July 18th, 2006 at 6:45 pmI must agree with L Davis statement regarding child abuse. It is the most henious of crimes.
July 18th, 2006 at 6:55 pmI wish it were tongue in cheek, but the guy’s vote on the matter appears to suggest he was serious:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll378.xml
(he is Davis (TN) in this document)
July 18th, 2006 at 7:21 pmHe is brilliantly calling the Republicans on their hypocrasy. Remember, this is the ‘Defense of Marriage Act”. (It should really be the “Attack on Gay Mariiage Act”.) If they REALLY wanted to defend marriage, they would outlaw divorce! Actually, for the Religious Right, Jesus spent MUCH more time speaking on the ills of divorce than he did even mentioning homosexuality.
The Republicans are so busy trying to pander to their religious constituency, playing “tough” by trying to outlaw gay marriage and abortion, that they are ignoring some of the truly ‘Christian” values that they could instill on this nation, such as caring for the poor, justice for the downtrodden, and honesty from our elected officials. Is that too much to ask?
July 18th, 2006 at 7:35 pmWelcome back, Jonathan Swift
Excellent Swiftian remarks from the Tennessee Democrat. Throw their hypocritical self-righteousness back in their faces.
July 18th, 2006 at 7:49 pmI am feeling dissapointed by some of the postings from a few, usually very thoughtful and reasonable TP regulars. When Republicans in Congress recently tried to amend the Constitution to prohibit ‘Flag Burning’, the underlying issue was not lost on most of us. It was not about ‘protecting the Flag’, it was about manipulating their base. They do this all of the time, and it is most prevalent in the months leading up to an election. And it seems to slip the people’s minds that these ‘moral crusade’ issues keep returning every couple of years. The ‘Gay Marriage Ban’ amendment issue is no different. How many times have Republicans ridden this issue to re-election, only to ‘lose interest’ in them, until the next election cycle? 2000, 2002, 2004, and now, for 2006. And the Senate has already voted on this, and it failed to pass, so the House voting on this now, is only for political posturing. It is not going to happen this time either, and the House Republicans KNOW this, and yet they still want to have a ‘debate’ and a ‘vote’ on it anyway. So Rep. Davis (who I am seriously ‘crushing’ on, at the moment), instead of allowing the Republicans to ‘use’ this to their own advantage, yet again, has decided to make them actually DO the work here, of defending their position, and actually SHOW how ‘Gay Marriage’ is more of a threat to ‘Traditional Marriage’ than adultery, or divorce. Don’t most marriage vows include promises to be faithful to each other? I can’t recall ever hearing anyone add a “or until I get bored with you” to their vows. And that “till DEATH do us part” promise. That seems pretty clear to me. They swear to this, before ‘God’ and everyone, and sign legal contracts as well. They all know what they are getting into, it was their choice to do so. Rep. Davis is just pointing out that something that is not even legal in 49 states right now, is nowhere close to being a threat to ‘the sanctity of marriage’, unlike adultery, spousal or child abuse, or divorce. If Republicans are truly serious about ‘protecting marriage’, and not just using ‘Gay Marriage’ to ‘rally the base’, to get them to vote, then they should be willing to address the EXISTING ‘threats’ to marriage, not something that isn’t even legal in 49 states, as of now. So why the drive for a Constitutional amendment, RIGHT NOW, when there are so many more pressing matters they SHOULD be addressing? Rep. Davis is doing his job. It is not his fault that he has to ‘dumb it down’, so that the amendment’s ’supporters’ are capable of grasping the point that he is trying to make. I only wish there were more like him.
July 18th, 2006 at 7:59 pmThe problem with your assessment there Skippy is that satire is dead. The Rethug’s rhetoric over the past few years has been so outrageous that even relatively intelligent folk with normally good BS detectors can no longer tell parody/satire from sincerity. And who can blame them? Satirists can no longer keep up or be outrageous enough to be easily recognized.
I know this guy is a Dem but he is a southern Dem and as a result I can understand why liberals wouldn’t know, right off the bat, how to take this fellows comments. I happen to think the guy is using satire but like I said who can tell anymore? In fact, the only reason I see this as satire is because this guy is a Dem. If he were a Republican I would have to immediately assume he was stating his position sincerely.
Calling folks who can no longer determine satire from sincerity “morons” isn’t fair today. Satire is dead.
July 18th, 2006 at 9:26 pm91, 92, 93: see the roll call. i wish this were satire, but the guy did end up voting for the bill.
July 18th, 2006 at 9:34 pmSee Skippy? If what MzNicky says is true then not only are you and I wrong but you owe many folks an apology and you had better begin “taking life way too seriously” yourself. America has gone to complete shit. Isn’t that something to take seriously?
The use of satire and public embarrassment tactics are dead and ineffective. These pols have no conscience or sense of decency to appeal to. They are, with the exception of Feingold and perhaps Conyers all corporate whores who will sell us out at the earliest possible convenience. “Liberty” means nothing to these people. Now is not a time for humor and if we had any sense we would vote out all politicians who are undermining the constitution and destroying this country with their “cultural agenda.” Yes, this includes Hillary “anti-flag burning amendment” Clinton. And, if that is not an option - if we are either not given good choices to make or if deibold is used to maintain the status quo then other, more drastic, measures are needed. There is one thing I am sure of - Jefferson wasn’t being satirical when he said, The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. The time has come for serious people to do serious things. We need to get this country back by hook or by crook if necessary.
July 18th, 2006 at 9:56 pmThe Wikipedia entry for this guy and his legislative history sadly shows that he is absolutely serious.
Hopefully this unintentional bit of satire will show the Democrats how to fight.
July 18th, 2006 at 10:30 pmRep. Davis was NOT serious. He was making a point about the hypocrisy of the bill. He did vote for it, but that is not to say he meant the ironies of his speech literally. He represents a really rural, conservative district (previously represented by a neo-con) that practically demands a yes vote on passage. His speech was simply to highlight the larger issue- gays don’t threaten our marriages. We threaten our marriages.
July 18th, 2006 at 10:31 pmDamn right Mr Davis. Kudos for giving repubs a taste of their own hypocritical medicine!
July 18th, 2006 at 10:59 pmDavis said Congress should “outlaw ‘Newts’ †and “outlaw ‘Newtesses’ and make Newts/Newtesses a felony.†In addition, Davis said, “we should also prevent those who commit Newt, or get a divorce, from running for office.â€
I think we may have coined a new word.
Newt You Pal!
Your a Newt.
Newt this!
Newt that!
Wth? [what the Newt? =]
July 18th, 2006 at 11:06 pmTongue in cheek, maybe, but he was also, more importantly, saying ‘put up or shut up’!
July 18th, 2006 at 11:15 pm#95-ka-bar, I think that satire and public embarrassment tactics are alive and well. For the success of satire, I offer “The Daily Show” as proof. It has proven to be very effective at exposing a great number of people to ‘the news’, who otherwise would not be watching news programming, or reading newspapers for information. As for the effectiveness that ‘public embarrassment’ has, as a ‘tactic’, it is the favorite ‘weapon’ of the Bush Administration, except when it is used on them. Karl Rove is the King of the ‘Smear Tactic’, and BushCo does not hesitate to use it, if they are feeling threatened, or they need to ‘change the subject’, in a big fat hurry. Do I really need to provide examples, or are you able to recall them yourself? I will simply say ‘Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame’. “Destroying the Messenger” requires ‘public enbarrassment’ to be effective, how would it work otherwise?
July 18th, 2006 at 11:21 pmWell if that’s the new rule we will have not representatives in office. Since most of our Senate, Congress and House of Reps have been shagging somebody and Bush is shagging Connie Rice. Thanks goodness Porter Goss left after his Hookergate sex acts. The GOP makes Clinton look like a kid. There goes the religious moral Red States as most of our elected officials say one thing and do something else. Washingon officials are the home of the sinners. Our President is a drunk, Vice President is a criminals and Rummy is a murder.
July 18th, 2006 at 11:35 pmLet the Neo-Con without sin cast the first stone….
July 19th, 2006 at 12:11 amI like his part about NO one being allowed to run for office who has committed adultery or got divorced > that would clean out most of the Republicans in the House and Senate, plus clean out most of the phony Democrats as well > lol.
July 19th, 2006 at 12:46 amThis apparently puts me in the minority, but I think this Davis is a first-class kook. It’s clear that he was and is serious. (See Post #96.) I’m not so sure we ought to be cheering on Democrats who attack Republicans from the extreme right. We don’t actually want to keep divorcees from running for office, do we? Just to stick it to Giuliani? That seems awfully short-sighted.
July 19th, 2006 at 1:49 amPost 105 > It would disqualify Newt Gingrich from running for president! It would disqualify John McCain as well! It would basically disqualify most of the GOP membership in DC!
I think the guy was being sarcastic to undermine and expose the Republicans as hypocrites!
July 19th, 2006 at 2:08 amY’know, I’d love just once to hear someone give actual reasons for not wanting to legalize gay marriage. All I ever hear is religious nonsense or bold-faced lies, or personal feelings on the issue. They have to resort to those because they can’t find a single piece of hard, scientific evidence from the places that allow gay marriage to show how it supposedly harms marriage at all.
July 19th, 2006 at 3:46 amJust once, I’d love someone to call these hateful bastards out on this issue and make them try to defend their position with facts, not lies or fallacious straw-man arguments or religious claptrap.
#101
You miss the point. Do not conflate smear tactics with public embarrassment tactics. Smearing is just that, smearing. Public embarrassment, in the form of satire or parody, is the attempted act of showing someone or a group for who they really are by pointing out the idiocy of their agenda or actions through the use of humorously truthful and sincere appeals to conscience, common sense and common decency. You are correct that The Daily Show and The Colbert Report do this but they are having little affect in the grand scheme of things. Given the political and cultural climate of our country at the moment, what they do amounts to merely being humorous. That is fine if what you want is humor but my larger point is that humor and satirical attempts to embarrass these authoritarians are not going to work. They do not care and can not be embarrassed precisely because they have no conscience or basic decency. Neither do the majority of the American people for that matter - if they had, all of this would have ended along time ago.
You may believe that satire and parody are having a significant impact - I do not. As I said before, when relatively intelligent people with better than average senses of humor can no longer decipher satire/parody from sincerity, then the world has been turned on its head and we are in real trouble. Everything becomes surreal. Further, I believe that if you are relying on sanity to win out simply because it is er.. well, sane, then you may find yourself one day giggling at Colbert as they haul you away to a “traitor” camp. I am sure the German Jews in the late 30’s believed sanity and common decency would win out and we see where that belief got them, no? It can’t happen here right? Keep yukking it up.
July 19th, 2006 at 7:46 amWhat’s sad is that folks automatically assume because Davis is from the South (and Tennessee) he must be serious. Or the fact that the debate has gone beyond the realm of the absurd into some Twilight Zone of surrealism and nobody noticed.
At any rate, y’all need to read up on Tennessee and get rid of your prejudices and preconceived notions about our state:
http://redstatereader.com/Issue_1/TN_Myth_v_Fact.html
When you’re done with that, come on over to KnoxViews.com for more Tennessee/Southern goodness:
http://www.knoxviews.com/
July 19th, 2006 at 8:27 amI have been telling people ever since the gay marriage ban talk started that if you really wanted to SAVE marriage, make it illegal to get divorced. That way you frame the issue just like the GOP does. You have to go on record of either for or against marriage. I’d be willing to bet that if people started hammering on this issue, any gay marriage amendment that comes up will be roundly defeated.
July 19th, 2006 at 10:15 amLincoln Davis is yet another tragic example of what happens when cousins marry. Expect photos of him - naked, drunk, unconscious, lying in a dumpster, handcuffed to a goat in a wedding gown - to surface at any time. Worse yet, maybe he’ll be seen in public with Ann Coulter. What a maroon.
July 19th, 2006 at 11:38 amLincoln Davis is yet another tragic example of what happens when cousins marry. Expect photos of him - naked, drunk, unconscious, lying in a dumpster, handcuffed to a goat in a wedding gown - to surface at any time. Worse yet, maybe he’ll be seen in public with Ann Coulter. What a maroon.
Comment by Raoul Vegas — July 19, 2006 @ 11:38 am
Now THERE’S an example of some mighty fine satire. Nice work!
July 19th, 2006 at 12:02 pmI think you are all missing the point…regardless of whether or not he was serious or not…he made a very poignant point…and that is that if we are going to debate the “sanctity of marrige” and threats to it…then we should be focusing on ALL of the threats…not just one. If you are going to make a law banning same sex marriage based on the “sanctity of marriage” bs that they are trying to use…then honey you better include divorce, adultry, abuse, and everything else that could potentially harm the sanctity of marriage. The fact is…it is too extreme to outlaw all of those things…it is unrealistic and ultimately a ridiculous debate…and whether he intended to or not…he made that point. You can’t pass this law unless you are ready to pass the others as well. And with so many in office who have had divorces, or committed adultry…do you honestly think any of them are ready to step up to the ultimate sacrifice to save the “sanctity of marriage”? Come on people! As a society…we are the ones who allow these politicians to spend their time on ignorant debates over our natural rights as human beings…not as citizens of the United States…but as human beings. If we were to stop debating and fighting amoungst ourselves about the idiotic then ultimately our elected officials would then be forced to look at the real issues within our country…poverty, finance control and reform, environmental issues, fuel issues, medical reform. People…WE ARE THE CAUSE OF IDIOTIC DEBATES LIKE THESE!!! It is not my place nor your place to debate on what the other person will do with their life unless it in some way directly effects me or you. And I am sorry…as much as some would like to claim that two people getting married effects you…unless you are part of that union…I assure you…it does not! Our sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, hundreds of people in other countries are dying for freedoms we already have…and yet we are arguing over whether or not the guy down the street or the lady who serves me coffee every morning has the right to happiness with the person he or she loves! Our society has some serious issues…and we are the ultimate cause!! For those who are Bible thumpers…”Ye who hath not sinned may cast the first stone!” (Justplainmade) If you have never felt even the hint of anger (reread your post) or hatred…if you have never once looked at someone of the opposite sex and thought that they were pretty or sexy…if you have never once discriminated against an individual out of disgust for their choices in their livestyle…then I emplore you…please…feel free to cast your stones…otherwise…shut the hell up…move on with your lives and allow the rest of us to live ours! If you feel the need to debate about something…start talking about our economy…the gas prices…education of our children…how about poverty…the environment…hell…talk about the damn weather…but leave human rights alone!!! They are called HUMAN RIGHTS for a reason!!!
July 19th, 2006 at 12:42 pmI’d be shocked if he was being “serious”. Why are my fellow liberals accusing him of being a loon, when it appears he’s merely pointing out Conservative hypocrisy?
July 19th, 2006 at 12:55 pm[…] Today’s selection is a bit different as it comes from Think Progress, and it deals with recent remarks made during the debate on gay marriage. Representative Lincoln Davis (D-Tennessee) made some very interesting remarks on the sanctity of marriage. Rep. Davis opposed the largely symbolic Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (The Senate had already defeated the bill) not because he had a thing against gays, but he felt the bill didn’t go far enough. […]
July 19th, 2006 at 1:50 pmI love it…
July 19th, 2006 at 2:07 pmRep. Lincoln Davis’s satire is magnificient. But there is a major problem that we are overlooking. The best way to lay to proposed Constitutional Amendment to rest is for liberals and true conservatives to get serious about preserving the American Constitution which is truly a remarkable document. The founders in their wisdom made the document difficult to ammend, and the amending process has only been successful 27 times in more than 200 years. The Federal Marriage Amendment does not fit and has no place in the Constitution. If Churches want to preach and teach specific doctrines, that is their right; but those doctrines should never be codified in law, particularly Constitutional Law. Who are these “conservatives” who have forgotten the principle of separation of church and state? I keep waiting for them to act as true conservatives and help preserve our greatest American legacy: the Constitution. Instead they are permitting the Bush administration to use homosexuality as a wedge issue to distract us from more important problems and to sure up his fundamental religious base.
July 19th, 2006 at 2:18 pmI find his speech to be exactly wonderful. If he can successfully include those items to the ammendment, then it is 100% assured the ammendment will (A) not pass and (B) never get ratified in any state should (A) not occur.
But he also carries an interesting point that the current proposed ammendment does nothing to offset the destruction of marriage.
Sometimes, idiots are the best thing for hawks and doves.
July 19th, 2006 at 7:15 pmFor those who would still believe that Lincoln Davis was serious about making divorce a felony, let me point you to one part of the speech cropped by ThinkProgress:
I hope that ThinkProgress elects to find the balance of the speech to add much needed context.
July 19th, 2006 at 7:35 pmAt any rate, y’all need to read up on Tennessee and get rid of your prejudices and preconceived notions about our state:
http://redstatereader.com/Issue_1/TN_Myth_v_Fact.html
Comment by R. Neal —
Good article, it made me laugh.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:26 amAmazing. Have we become so stupid in this country that we don’t recognize sarcasm? The congressman’s point is well made, and well taken. Divorce and adultery are far more threatening to marriage than homosexual marriages, simply because of the numbers, to say nothing of the true impact on children. And he also points out the hypocracy of Congress.
To put into language that a conservative might understand - “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! “. And “You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” And yet again “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.”
Wake up people!
July 20th, 2006 at 2:31 am[…] At least 29 members of Congress are divorced. Filed under: Culture, Politics @ 5:36 am […]
July 20th, 2006 at 8:36 amPeople! People! The guy was SERIOUS! He knew it was b.s., but he MEANT IT!
Check it out:
http://guerillawomentn.blogspot.com/2006/07/lincoln-logs.html
Sheesh! What part of disingenuous asshat Tennessee politican do you not understand?
July 20th, 2006 at 8:50 am`
PEOPLE! HE DIDN’T MEAN IT LITERALLY!
Call his Press guy and ask! You can’t believe every opinion you read as fact (don’t we say that about Fox News? It applies here, too). He was being sarcastic, pointing out the hypocrisy. He voted for it because he has a conservative district, but his speech was point out the amendment’s flaws.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:44 pmCapitolNut: For the third time: I DID CALL. I don’t know if the minion I spoke to was his official spinmeister or not, but for cryin’ out loud, part of the press secretary’s job is to mop up and control. (And thanks for pointing out Fox News, from whence, of course, the Pretendizent’s current PRESS SECRETARY cometh.)
I think my question to whoever it was I spoke with IN HIS OFFICE— that is, “Is he serious?”—caught them by surprise. Like, before they realized what he’d said would foment a bit of scrutiny.
July 20th, 2006 at 2:51 pmYou’ve got to admit that Rep. Lincoln Davis is carrying the logic of the fundamentalists to its natural conclusion. Adultery is a far worse threat to marriage than homosexuality. I hope that these folks make this case more often, so that the sleepwalkers may eventually wake up — in the slammer, ha ha.
July 20th, 2006 at 3:40 pmI agree, it would be satire if he meant it as such. We should be aware though, in spite of our best hopes, he meant it and he voted to ban gay marriage. I guess we are going to have to find a progressive Dem somewhere in his district to run against him. love,Eliz
July 20th, 2006 at 3:59 pmDavis says he was not serious:
http://www.knoxviews.com/node/1561
July 20th, 2006 at 5:02 pm[…] The American Taliban boldly presents its agenda to the House. Watch Rep. Lincoln Davis (D-TN) call for the house to outlaw divorce, ban divorced persons from running for congress, make adultery a felony, and make puberty a misdemeanor. Okay…not that last one. (Via Think Progress.) […]
July 22nd, 2006 at 4:07 amThank you, Mr Davis, for standing up for something morally correct. I wash all our politicians could shouw a little backbone. Our country is currently experiencing a moral crisis. We are accepting homosexuality, divorce, abortion, and many other acts that should be a shame not only in our eyes, as Americans, but in God’s eyes also. Moral decay is due to the groups like the ACLU standing up for those who don’t believe in God. But here’s the rub…in efforts to ban Godly messages from our public places they have stepped on MY constitutional right to participate in these things. You simply cannot unconstitutionally ban christians from publicly serving God, to honor the wishes of the non-believers. Should abortion, homosexuality, and divorce be illegal? ABSOLUTELY!!! Why? Read your bible and you will see!
August 10th, 2006 at 1:55 pmI hope that they pass that law, My husband of 33 years became a Mayor of our Island, the communitiy was trying so hard to recall him but the number change last minute, yes is higher than no but didn’t meet the number that election commission said, the number was total for him and the other person he ran again, instead only his total number. If only his total voters number then he would have lost. His moved out the village into another village with his new mistress his own cousin wife and his clerk that is 26 years younger than him and a person with bad background, stripper. con artist, alcoholic and etc. He acknowledge on TV that she the girlfriend. The community wanted him out because he was not doing his job as a mayor, alway gone with her. Walk around the community with love marked on their neck. They make love in his office, using the mayor’s office as their bedroom and daycare for her kids. And because what he did to me, am losing my Military ID due that I did meet the 20/20/20. Left almost 16 months and never try to correct his mistake but file for divorce. He never help pay for any bills nor mortgage. He is also a retired US Army. I wrote to my congresswomen regarding by rights and benefit for the Military ID card and its not right that it was his adultery that destroy our marriages and that because I didn’t the 20/20/20 they are taking it away from me. Please protect the wife of the retiree, they have alot here that will leave their wife for someone and their medical benefit is taken away due to the husband fault.
August 27th, 2006 at 9:06 pmI am married with him for 33 years but in the military only 18 years. Please consider this request.
[…] Pretty Wild ideas!!! From The Article: […]
November 8th, 2006 at 2:29 pmDid anyone mention that not only is the divorce rate among heterosexual couples higher than it’s ever been, and child abuse and domestic violence is a prevelant threat to the “sanctity” of marriage — but also that most child molestation is performed by married, heterosexual men. How appropriate that our government would overlook these things to win the blue collar american’s belief in them through a religious agenda, while they divert attention from their white collar intents for big money and big business.
I own a company in TN which is lining these very politicians pockets with lots of money, and know many other homosexual business owners here, so I’d like to propose that since homosexuals are being denied marriage rights — I will then take a tax break to ensure that my homosexual employees and their partners are entitled benefits for their domestic partnerships. If the government cannot meet these demands, then I will reorganize my companies legal structure and incorporate in a state that does support equal rights. It is only my hope that other companies existing under the laws of Tennessee will do the same, and take away all funding from these morons.
Of course his comments and proposals are outrageous — but ask yourself, are they any more outrageous than adding a constitutional ammendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman, while simultaneously denying rights from law abiding citizens. Or are you (the people who support the ammendment) simply so ignorant, that you can’t see you have fallen for one of the oldest tricks in the political books. You don’t wish to protect marriage, you wish to destroy the constitution by adding religion and discrimination into it — a document that is supposed to protect all Americans. How sad, and truly ignorant.
Living in Tennessee, I sincerely had faith in the intellegence of the people in this state. Clearly, I was mistaken. Before you respond with hate to this message — I hope you think about Davis’ statements. If you have been divorced or had a child without being married or anything outside the normal definitions of a sanctified marriage — then you too are no better than Barry and Larry who have been monogamously committed to each other for over 30 years. Larry, who will one day pass on — so that the laws of this state can take everything from his partner Barry — and refuse the right for Barry to visit him while in the hospital, because the government has allowed now his family to make the decisions about what is right for him — although his family hasn’t spoken to Larry in over 30 years, because they think that Larry is a sinner.
May God have mercy on all of your souls. If anyone in this great nation is going to hell, it’s you. Cast the first stone, wait, you already have.
November 9th, 2006 at 8:45 pm[…] Okay, I’m officially embarrassed by Lincoln Davis, my congressman. On the floor of the House of Representatives during debate on the gay marriage amendment, he spoke in favor of a constitutional amendment outlawing divorce. He also said he supported making adultery a felony, and barring those who are divorced or have committed adultery from ever running for public office. […]
January 16th, 2007 at 9:46 pm