Republican Goes Full Stupid, Says Constitution Is Against Gay Marriage (VIDEO)

fail

Republican Congressman Steve King (R-IA) may have not completely thought out his statements when he sat down to make this video. Or maybe he did, and that’s the terrible part. In the following video, you’ll get to see him hilariously try to explain why we should keep bigoted practices regarding marriage in place, as well as suggest that the United States Constitution may be “sentient” … (watch video and you’ll understand what I mean by that!).

 

I’ll point out his most idiotic remarks real quick.

He starts off talking about regulation for licensing, which is interesting because it initially appears that we’re seeing someone opposed to marriage equality use the rudiments of logic. Unfortunately, as we find out, this ends up being completely false. The statement that licenses exist to regulate behavior that is otherwise illegal is false. Marriage exists as a legal representation of a societal bond that every human culture in recorded history has formed, and the fact that romantic love is the same no matter the sex of the partner indicates that the legal definition of marriage should reflect that. The only reasons to be opposed to same-sex marriage (just so you know, they’re going to have sex either way; you’re just trying to stop them from having their bond legally recognized, a**hole) are religious, and it’s funny to watch people like this bend over backward trying to get away from that.

From video:

“Marriage is promoted by the states because that’s the best way that we know how to promote the best of our culture and civilization into the next generation. Marriage has been about natural procreation, remains about natural procreation. And about parenting. Children need a mom and a dad. And that’s the experience of all of the millennia of human experience.

The Constitution never contemplated [hence, the “sentient” reference] marriage being anything other than between a man and a woman, and for the United States Supreme Court to come to an opposite conclusion would mean, I think, a real distortion of the  Constitution, which is a contractual guarantee between each of the generations that I have mentioned.”

All I can really pull from that is he’s against gay marriage, because none of it really makes any sense at all. If marriage is about procreation, should we have fertility tests as a part of the licensing process? Maybe you can only stay married as long as you have a Christian child every three years? What about the elderly?


Marriage isn’t about kids. It is, as I said, a legal representation of a societal relationship/bond. Marriage is important because, once you have that partner, it confers thousands of rights that you cannot otherwise have, and withholding that based on sexual preference is discriminatory. Also, same-sex couples are just as good for kids. I’m also not sure what the “experience … of experience” is. Seems like poor word choice.

Let’s get something straight for Mr. King here about what the Constitution says about marriage: absolutely nothing. Not a word. Because of that, using the word “contemplation” seems to indicate that the Constitution has thoughts. I’m somewhat skeptical. Also, the “contractual guarantee between each of the generations I have mentioned” bit is pretty confusing as well. A contractual guarantee between generations? Of what? And what generations were mentioned?

It’s literally like somebody wrote this with a certain word density requirement for things like “traditional,” “marriage” and “children,” because this little diatribe really is nonsensical.


Political Writer, Justin Acuff Please join me on Facebook, or visit my home site.You can also follow me on Twitter.