Rep. Culberson Offers Incoherent And Illogical Stance On Gay Marriage
Rep. Culberson Offers Incoherent And Illogical Stance On Gay Marriage
Last night, C-SPAN aired the lasted segment of Students & Leaders series, with Rep. John Culberson (R-TX). Addressing a group of D.C. students, he repeatedly emphasized the need for less government interference in Americans’ lives. “I’m very focused on eliminating — shutting down as much of the federal government’s functions as I can,” Culberson said, while espousing state and local control.
However, when a student asked Culberson about state control over gay marriage, Culberson rapidly descended into incoherence. He began by declaring, “It’s up to the states.” But by the end of his rambling answer, he tried to explain why the federal government “cannot permit” a state like Vermont to make its own rules. All this while repeating that people’s “privacy is fundamental”:
CULBERSON: Well under the 10th amendment, the states have a first responsibility for providing for public safety, public health, public morality. All issues that just affect the people within that state. It’s up to the states. And you either follow the constitution or you don’t. [...]
Federal law cannot permit — if one state, Vermont, wants to do that, you can’t let that cross state lines. You’ve got to let — frankly, a lot of these issues have got to be left up to the states. But the federal government cannot permit for example — The federal government has a legitimate role in interstate commerce. And that’s where the federal government comes in. I think the federal government can’t recognize — shouldn’t recognize it, it’s just a bad idea. And uh — But fundamentally, the right of privacy’s fundamental. I’m not interested — what people do at home’s their own business.
Culberson’s response reminded ThinkProgress of a famous scene from the movie Billy Madison in which a debate judge tells Adam Sandler’s character, “Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to” your “rambling, incoherent response.” Watch our compilation:
At one point in his answer, Culberson tried to frame the question as one of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment:
If you provide federal civil rights to an individual based on one particular type of private sexual behavior, under the Equal Protection clause, I’m obligated to provide civil rights protection to any other type of private sexual behavior. Think about that.
Of course, the government already provides civil rights to one particular type of sexual behavior — heterosexual behavior. By Culberson’s own argument, therefore, the government is “obligated” to protect homosexual “behavior” as well.
It’s no wonder that Culberson has earned a a zero percent rating from the Human Rights Campaign every year he’s been in office.
Transcript:
QUESTION: You said a lot about how the federal government shouldn’t be in our house. My question is about gay marriage. So do you really think the federal government should be in our house, or the government shouldn’t, because as I know gay marriage is — it’s the state government that controls that. So what do you think of that?
CULBERSON: Well under the 10th Amendment, the states have a first responsibility for providing for public safety, public health, public morality. All issues that just affect the people within that state. It’s up to the states. And you either follow the constitution or you don’t.
Now, personally, I think — and it’s I think also self-evident — that you’ve got to have a marriage between a man and woman or society’s not going to make it. You’re not going to have a fruitful, growing, productive civilization unless marriage is between a man and a woman. I mean, that’s just history — history will show you that. But it is a person’s private business. Their private life is their private business. I’m fundamentally a libertarian at heart. And I do believe in the 10th amendment. I don’t want to hear about somebody’s private behavior.
Now think about this. If we provide civil rights protection to somebody based on private sexual behavior — well, the Constitution, 14th Amendment, says we have to provide equal protection. Now last question: If you provide federal civil rights to an individual based on one particular type of private sexual behavior, under the Equal Protection clause, I’m obligated to provide civil rights protection to any other type of private sexual behavior. Think about that.
This doesn’t work logically, it doesn’t work for the country as a whole. Fundamentally, we’ve got to preserve and protect the Constitution. Federal law cannot permit — if one state, Vermont, wants to do that, you can’t let that cross state lines. You’ve got to let — frankly, a lot of these issues have got to be left up to the states but the federal government cannot permit for example — The federal government has a legitimate role in interstate commerce. And that’s where the federal government comes in. I think the federal government can’t recognize — shouldn’t recognize it, it’s just a bad idea. And uh — But fundamentally, the right of privacy’s fundamental. I’m not interested — what people do at home’s their own business.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I don’t want to hear about somebody’s private behavior.
THEN S.T.F.U. MORON.
Jeez…
May 27th, 2009 at 3:44 pmGee, if we provide equal rights for everybody, where will it end?
May 27th, 2009 at 3:45 pmI find Culberson’s argument cumbersome.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:47 pmBecause…because…because…MOMMY! Johnny’s picking on me!
May 27th, 2009 at 3:47 pmWe really should consider some sort of test or minimum requirements for being able to run for Congress.
Like being a member of the human race.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:50 pmNumerous republican politicians and pundits have complained about “socialist” Universities and “elitist” colleges. When you pander to the uneducated, this is the result.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:50 pmDamn kids….What do they know?
May 27th, 2009 at 3:51 pmCULBERSON: Well under the 10th amendment, the states have a first responsibility for providing for public safety, public health, public morality. All issues that just affect the people within that state. It’s up to the states. And you either follow the constitution or you don’t.
The states are “responsible for providing for… public morality”? Gee, I must have missed that one in my civics class.
PEACE
May 27th, 2009 at 3:52 pmThis doesn’t work logically, it doesn’t work for the country as a whole.
At least he got something correct.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:54 pmTexas must be one of those right-to-bork states.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:56 pmOther than teh gays, are peoples’ rights currently determined by what they do in the bedroom? I wasn’t aware that you gained or lost civil rights based on private behavior. I mean, not as a principle of law.
Also like how he says the 10th Amendment says states get to regulate “morality.” He must have a different copy of the Constitution than I do.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:56 pmI could have done without the Billy Madison reference. Let the Representative destroy his own argument–no need to add insult to injury.
That being said, I do have a pretty bad headache after parsing all of that. Really, is it a state right or a federal right?
What the anti-gay-marriage people don’t understand is that being homosexual is not only related to sexual expression, even though the root of the word may be located in it. Being homosexual does not mean one is a sexual deviant. One could be homosexual without even bringing sex into the argument. A homosexual person has a connection with a like gender, but could completely be celibate when it comes to sex.
Keep that argument in your craw, unless it confuses you even more, Mr. Culberson.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:57 pm10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
THIS is the important phrase. Whom you marry is neither a federal nor a state power. That power is reserved to the people.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:57 pmIs there any other kind when arguing against it?
May 27th, 2009 at 3:59 pmWhy is it that the Big Tent/Little Government party is the loudest voice for telling us what the country’s morals should be?
May 27th, 2009 at 4:01 pmbig govt republicans want the govt to control your personal life while letting big businesses rob you blind
May 27th, 2009 at 4:03 pmIt’s no wonder that Culberson has earned a a zero percent rating from the Human Rights Campaign every year he’s been in office.
It makes a good matching bookend with his IQ certificate.
Cheers,
May 27th, 2009 at 4:04 pmLast I heard there is no evidence that one can be influenced or persuaded to teh gay. It is either in one or not. You can’t be converted, persuaded or coerced into being gay.
Question is, is the same true with religion or bigotry?
May 27th, 2009 at 4:05 pmI suppose at this point asking someone to explain once and for all just how gay marriage poses a “threat ” to hetero marriage is just pointless…
May 27th, 2009 at 4:16 pmIn Culberson’s defense, there is no coherent case against gay marriage. Traditional marriage ended when we recognized an individual’s right to marry whom they will, dispensing with centuries of family control and the identity of marriage as an economic institution first.
They blew it. Time to let the gays in, now.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:21 pm“Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to” your “rambling, incoherent response.”
Which goes to everyone who views Fox News.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:21 pmThank you, Rep. John Culberson (R-TX). It’s people like you who make me less horrified to live in Crazy Shelly’s (Bachmann) home state.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:22 pmI would have to sympathize with this poor gent……I too get confused what States can and cant legislate or where the Fed has seniority…….but then again, it not my chosen career direction. If a guy in the business doesn’t know either then what does that say about our illustrious career politicians !
May 27th, 2009 at 4:22 pmUndecided, the rules are clear. The states can do any damn thing they want as long as it doesn’t contradict or violate federal.
We are all US citizens first, state citizens, second.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:27 pmThat may be confusing to some of you who like to pigeon-hole all Republicans into one mind-set, but I remain….
May 27th, 2009 at 4:28 pm—-
Why did you feel the need to add that part? Does it add something or do you have an agenda?
This is clearly a guy who stayed awake only for about 5 minutes of each of three different lectures in his first-year law school Con Law class — his mixing of the concepts of state sovreignty under the 10th Amendment, interstate commerce under Article I, and personal right to privacy which has been recognized only in opinions from the SCOTUS (much to Scalia’s chagrin), makes it clear that he wasn’t paying attention…
May 27th, 2009 at 4:28 pmAnyone against gay marriage can only provide illogical or incoherent arguments. Those are the only arguments there are.
Marriage is commerce now? WTF?
May 27th, 2009 at 4:30 pmIt’s refined political rhetoric like Culberson’s that makes me ashamed I am a Texan. Reminds me of the speech in Blazing Saddles where the old prospector rambles incoherently.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:31 pmI think I developed an aneurysm after reading Culbertson’s bizarre rant.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:32 pmCulberson’s response reminded ThinkProgress of a famous scene from the movie Billy Madison in which a debate judge tells Adam Sandler’s character, “Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to” your “rambling, incoherent response.”
____________
A lot of statements by conservatives remind me of this scene.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:32 pmOT:
May 27th, 2009 at 4:34 pmSorry Zooey but I just had to tell you that I was eating softshell crabs at about 1 am this morning. I figured that would of course gross you out…
That must account for the “ForProgress” part of your name, eh, C4P?
Too bad most of your ideas are from the “Conservative” part.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:35 pmTo Hardy Haberman the Texan, got ya beat! That moron is my Congress critter. And he’s just as bad in person, But my district has a lot of flat earthers, so he’s here to stay, sad to say.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:38 pmWell, crap!! Me and my duck were planning a very big wedding next week!!
Gosh darn, now we’ll have to cancel. Damn that Prop 8!!!
/snark
May 27th, 2009 at 4:39 pmLet’s see. 18,000 couples or 36,000 total citizens married as gays in California. That would be out of a state population of about thirty-six million, or about one out of a thousand. One tenth of one percent. A giant tempest in a tiny teapot, no?
May 27th, 2009 at 4:48 pmhaha… I was just wondering what this video was about, until the last 3 seconds
May 27th, 2009 at 4:48 pmWhat a hilariously irrelevant argument.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:54 pmdbadass Says:
OT:
Sorry Zooey but I just had to tell you that I was eating softshell crabs at about 1 am this morning. I figured that would of course gross you out…
May 27th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Well, you’re right… :P
May 27th, 2009 at 5:03 pmwags Says:
What a hilariously irrelevant argument.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
__________
But the trolls have tried to use it before. They seem to think that the fact that only a few thousand gay people were in relationships and at the stage in their relationships where they wanted to be married, for the brief time that they were legally allowed to be married in California, constitutes proof that this is a non-issue.
I wonder how many heterosexual couples applied for marriage licenses during that same time period…
May 27th, 2009 at 5:05 pmI remember it well. Bit tried to pull that one, regarding MA I believe.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:09 pmIncoherent Illogic = PublicansRUs
May 27th, 2009 at 5:15 pm#30 Hardy ~! You mean Gabby Johnson’s eloquent speech that he was born here, and he was raised here, and ain’t no cricky crakin whubbergibin jackerfrikker a gonna run me offa here!
May 27th, 2009 at 5:18 pmRibbht!
Oval12345678 aka James K. Sayre Says:
Let’s see. 18,000 couples or 36,000 total citizens married as gays in California. That would be out of a state population of about thirty-six million, or about one out of a thousand. One tenth of one percent. A giant tempest in a tiny teapot, no?
So obviously, allowing them to get continue to married wouldn’t do any harm to society whatsoever.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:21 pmDo these “Reagan” Republicans even know what “separate/separation” even means anymore?
Oh, the actual Magna Carta is at the Reagan Library. Maybe the Republican Congress should take a field trip and start with the basics, since they can’t interpret our legal documents worth a tinkers damn!
May 27th, 2009 at 5:27 pm#41 chiroptera toasterhead Says:
[T]he trolls have tried to use it before. They seem to think that the fact that only a few thousand gay people were in relationships and at the stage in their relationships where they wanted to be married, for the brief time that they were legally allowed to be married in California, constitutes proof that this is a non-issue.
I wonder how many heterosexual couples applied for marriage licenses during that same time period…
At least one. We did. And I’m proud and glad to say that we got married at a time when this ceremony was available to all and sundry who wanted to do so.
FWIW though, it really doesn’t matter if few, most, or all those wanting to get married are gay. That only a very few people are discriminated against is hardly any absolution from the crime of discrimination. The majority doesn’t get discriminated against, as the Carolene Products famous footnote alludes to.
Cheers,
May 27th, 2009 at 5:40 pmBingo.
And congrats!
May 27th, 2009 at 5:42 pmFirst, nobody’s talking about ‘private behavior’.
Second, I’m more reminded of Sarah Palin’s “We’re ill about this” response to Katie Couric last fall.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:46 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
I don’t think culberson realizes that “Homosexual Behavior” is already legal thanks to Lawrence v. Texas.
As far as I can tell, Republicans understand the law about as well as they understand science, economics or diplomacy.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:58 pmzuch Says:
At least one. We did.
I gotta say zuch, that dude you married is really goofy looking. Cheers. :D
May 27th, 2009 at 5:59 pmHas anyone told the homophobes that gays want to marry in order to have a partner? Being gay is more than just wanting to have sex with someone of your own sex, it’s being attracted as partners? Do these anti-sex straights just marry the person they want to have sex with. or what? If they are just using their married partner for sex, then they aren’t doing the institution of marriage any favors.
May 27th, 2009 at 6:03 pmWhat a bumbling idiot.
May 27th, 2009 at 6:20 pmwiley Says:
Has anyone told the homophobes that gays want to marry in order to have a partner?
They don’t understand that. According to their belief system you’re only gay during the time your pooper-hole is actually occupied by somebody else’s wee-wee. As soon as it’s removed, you’re straight again and can go back to your family. And BJ’s don’t even count, provided you don’t know the guy’s name.
May 27th, 2009 at 6:29 pmYeah, and if you beat the guy up afterward it never happened.
May 27th, 2009 at 6:34 pmRepublican politicians like Culberson obviously function under the notion that their audience is always as stupid as themselves and will just get lost in the incoherence.
May 27th, 2009 at 7:18 pmAnother Texas dumbass. What a surprise.
May 27th, 2009 at 7:30 pm“Rep. Culberson Offers Incoherent And Illogical Stance On Gay Marriage”
What other stance on anything has he ever offered? This man illustrates the deficiencies of the Texas public school system and the results of Bush’s meddling in “edumacation.” Believe me, folks, not all Texans are brain damaged from excess neurotrophic chemical use, just some of the more prominent. After all, Longnecks (local beer) and the proximity of the Mexican border make for a potent combination of drugs.
May 27th, 2009 at 7:54 pmThanks for the post
seslisohbet seslichat sesli sohbet sesli chat
May 27th, 2009 at 9:17 pmTexas Aggie Says:
Believe me, folks, not all Texans are brain damaged from excess neurotrophic chemical use, just some of the more prominent.
So the rest of you vote them into public office just to play a prank on the rest of us? Well, knock it off.
May 27th, 2009 at 9:58 pmSo incoherent. And what does “interstate commerce” have to do with this?!!!
May 28th, 2009 at 12:29 amQuoting Mr. Olbermann…
May 28th, 2009 at 12:32 am
Regarding the California Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage yesterday:
“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” — Justice Robert H. Jackson (1892-1954), U. S. Supreme Court Justice
May 28th, 2009 at 11:39 amWest Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 US 624, 1943
@Don in Texas
Bingo. Fundamental civil rights should never be decided at the behest of the people. The majority has no right to either give or deny rights to the minority. That very concept of legal equality is the very foundation of our country. To even hint at allowing a group of people to vote on the rights of another group of people is not only unconstitutional, it’s patently un-American.
May 28th, 2009 at 1:03 pmNot every Republican is against gay marriage. Not every Democrat is for it…
sarki dinle
June 1st, 2009 at 3:34 pmklip izle
porno izle
porno