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.

http://www.knoxviews.com/node/1561

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.

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.

Check it out:

http://guerillawomentn.blogspot.com/2006/07/lincoln-logs.html

Sheesh! What part of disingenuous asshat Tennessee politican do you not understand?
`

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!

Comment by R. Neal —

Good article, it made me laugh.

Now, for my second concern: Mr. Speaker, as a person of faith who has been blessed with a wonderful marriage for forty-two years, I am deeply troubled that some may be using this amendment to score political points with their base. Why else would we be voting on an amendment that has no chance of becoming law since the Senate has already rejected it? Why else would we vote on an amendment that may not be necessary when you consider that 45 states have enacted either constitutional or statutory bans on gay marriage, and other states, like my home state of Tennessee, have put such bans on the ballot in November? Why too would CQToday, in their July 17, 2006 issue report that this amendment is “part of the legislative ‘values’ agenda rolled out . . . to rally the GOP base in the run-up to the November elections?”

Mr. Speaker, this is very concerning to me. Just as one should not take the Lord’s name in vain, I also believe a good value for folks is to never undermine religion or marriage by using them to score political points with a base in order to win elections.

I hope that ThinkProgress elects to find the balance of the speech to add much needed context.

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.