Tumblr Icon RSS Icon

King: Same-Sex Marriage Is ‘A Purely Socialist Concept’

By Matt Corley on September 23, 2009 at 5:00 pm

"King: Same-Sex Marriage Is ‘A Purely Socialist Concept’"

Share:

google plus icon

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) talks into a microphoneIn April, when the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously struck down a state law defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) called it an “unconstitutional” decision and predicted that it could lead to Iowa becoming “the gay marriage Mecca.” On WorldNetDaily’s radio show today, King was asked what the “impact” of the decision has been on Iowa. He replied by saying that his prediction is becoming true:

KING: Well, we’ve had a significant percentage of people that have come to Iowa as same-sex couples to get married. And that, that percentage is up there some place over a fourth, if I remember correctly on the data that I have seen, and I don’t know that anything is complete at this point. I said that if this is allowed to stand, Iowa will become the Mecca for same-sex marriage and that is becoming the case. I know that there have been buses that have been, have gone to Iowa with loads of people in them in order to get married under the judge-made law.

Earlier this week, the Des Moines Register released a poll showing that “Iowans are almost evenly divided about whether they would vote for or against a constitutional amendment to end marriage for same-sex couples.” It also found that “the overwhelming majority of Iowans – 92 percent – say gay marriage has brought no real change to their lives.” Asked about the poll, King complained that many Iowans do not have “a very good understanding of what same-sex marriage does to the overall institution of marriage.” After claiming that “Rick Santorum was right” when he said that expanding gay rights would lead to a “right to incest,” King asserted that same-sex marriage is “a purely socialist concept”:

KING: But if, there also would be no rational argument against group marriage. And I just take this along the rationale even further and would say if relationships between individuals cannot be prohibited by the state legislature then there is no ban that can actually be constitutional that would ban group marriage. And it wouldn’t have to be for reasons of, let me say, love or lust. It could be reasons of profitability or avoiding taxes or accessing benefits.

So in the end this is something that has to come with a, if there’s a push for a socialist society, a society where the foundations of individual rights and liberties are undermined and everybody is thrown together, living collectively off of one pot of resources earned by everyone. That is, this is one of the goals they have to go to is same-sex marriage because it has to plow through marriage in order to get to their goal. They want public affirmation. They want access to public funds and resources. Eventually all those resources will be pooled because that’s the direction we’re going. And not only is it a radical social idea, it is a purely socialist concept in the final analysis.

Listen here:

Transcript:

HOST: As many of our listeners are aware, of course, your state by judicial fiat earlier this year legalized gay marriage and did not even put a restriction on requiring that those gay couples getting married be from Iowa. What has been the impact on your state as a result of that decision?

KING: Well, we’ve had a significant percentage of people that’ve come to Iowa as same-sex couples to get married. And that, that percentage is up there some place over a fourth, if I remember correctly on the data that I have seen, and I don’t know that anything is complete at this point. I said that if this is allowed to stand, Iowa will become the Mecca for same-sex marriage and that is becoming the case. I know that there have been buses that have been, have gone to Iowa with loads of people in them in order to get married under the judge-made law. And I believe that the judge-made law in Iowa is an extraconstitutional decision. It’s completely not based Constitution, our constitutional rights. They draw an assumption that a same-sex couple is similarly situated to opposite sex couples and therefore they’re covered by the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. And we know that they are not similarly situated. That once you assume that, the rest of the logic follows. And I said at the time that if this can stand in Iowa, they will use this rationale in other states and it looks like they’re using it in the federal courts in the district that is dealing with a case in Massachusetts right now.

[...]

HOST: Congressman, you’ve explained how difficult it is to amend your state’s Constitution, needing the legislature to go through the process before it ever gets to the people. Are you still confident, I know back when we talked at the time of the court’s decision you were confident that if it ever got to the people it would overwhelmingly choose traditional marriage only. There’s a new poll out showing its pretty much split in the state. Do you think there’s a shift or do you think if it still got on the ballot in a couple years from now that the folks would choose traditional marriage?

KING: I think that there’s been a little bit of a shift and part of it is because people have not noticed a change around them. And they are teaching the young people that there is an equal protection right to same-sex marriage and then they all argue that it doesn’t effect your marriage, you can still marry a person of the opposite sex in the same fashion that you always could. We haven’t come to grips with this thing very well yet in that there’s not a very good understanding of what same-sex marriage does to the overall institution of marriage itself. And we need to carry that argument out and let’s do that over the next couple of years and get this on the ballot so that Iowa isn’t the only state outside of the northeast that has same-sex marriage within it. And I, and I just would extend that rationale and argue this, that if marriage is something other than union between one man and one woman. If it can be, if the argument is that there’s an equal protection law, if there’s a right to same-sex marriage, if that right exists then that means Rick Santorum was right. The right also exists for any other relationship that one might argue. Then there would exist no ban, no rational foundation to prohibit incest, for example, between father and a son or a daughter or a mother and a son or daughter, for example or brothers and sisters. Every civilization has had a prohibition towards incest and every civilization has at least promoted relationships between a man and a woman, even though some have tolerated same-sex relationships more or less than others.

But if, there also would be no rational argument against group marriage. And I just take this along the rationale even further and would say if relationships between individuals cannot be prohibited by the state legislature then there is no ban that can actually be constitutaional that would ban group marriage. And it wouldn’t have to be for reasons of, let me say, love or lust. It could be reasons of profitability or avoiding taxes or accessing benefits. So in the end this is something that has to come with a, if there’s a push for a socialist society, a society where the foundations of individual rights and liberties are undermined and everybody is thrown together, living collectively off of one pot of resources earned by everyone. That is, this is one of the goals they have to go to is same-sex marriage because it has to plow through marriage in order to get to their goal. They want public affirmation. They want access to public funds and resources. Eventually all those resources will be pooled because that’s the direction we’re going. And not only is it a radical social idea, it is a purely socialist concept in the final analysis.

‹ PREVIOUS
Boehner and Cantor: ‘We are proud to serve with Congresswoman Michele Bachmann.’

NEXT ›
Census worker hanged with the word ‘fed’ scrawled on his body.

By clicking and submitting a comment I acknowledge the ThinkProgress Privacy Policy and agree to the ThinkProgress Terms of Use. I understand that my comments are also being governed by Facebook, Yahoo, AOL, or Hotmail’s Terms of Use and Privacy Policies as applicable, which can be found here.