Comments

  1. Bo says

    The point is, Mr. Graham, is that there is no need to “amend the Constitution”…the Constitution already provides for equal protection under the law. It doesn’t say a word about marriage, civil or otherwise. Rights are rights…we don’t have to vote on them. That’s why they’re called “rights.” If we all got to vote on things that creep us out, believe me, you wouldn’t be around much longer.

  2. Diver39 says

    Apparently Huckleberry saw a different version of “Lincoln” than I did, because in the version I saw, it was the legislature that outlawed slavery, not “the people”. Slavery was not put to a public vote.

    Piers’ comments are spot on regarding our nation being a beacon for freedom and liberty and the absurdity of their argument.

  3. MM says

    Piers missed a grand slam. He should have said, if you all believe in states rights as you are all so eloquently spewing forth, then why don’t you all go back to your offices and repeal DOMA. Cause DOMA infringes on state rights. They are hypocrites.

  4. anon says

    We’re on to you, Lindsey!

    You don’t need a constitutional amendment to enact gay marriage. Presumably he means that gay rights are not a constitutional right, but again, you would not need to enact a constitutional amendment. Federal law could accomplish the same thing.

  5. Quest says

    Lindsey is such a Kapo! LOL! I kinda feel sorry for him because he came of age in a time of complete oppression, however, he still is a complete joke of a human being!

  6. mike8787 says

    I can absolutely assure you that, should there be evidence that a Constitutional Amendment would pass, Graham would be espousing the appropriateness of this question for the judiciary. He is one in a long line of elected bigots who hide behind procedure and tradition to deflect accusations that they are, in fact, brimming with prejudice and hate.

  7. PeteP says

    These guys are all idiots. While McCain can say that marriage law has always been left to the states, he’s wrong. Loving v. Virginia was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down state laws that banned interracial marriage. Would Lindsey Graham say that he doesn’t think that a bunch of judges should have had the right to issue that opinion?

  8. Caliban says

    Graham is such a tool. In a Constitutional Republic like the US “the people” vote for legislators to decide issues in their stead. Slavery wasn’t ended by popular vote. Yet every time a duly elected legislature HAS approved SSM OR it has been approved by judges people like Graham insist that it should be “up to the people,” one of the very things our Constitution was designed to PREVENT.

    And not for nothing, but Graham has weapons-grade gay face.

  9. newz4i says

    In their argument, they bring up killing people. Following along with this, “a” state should be able to legalize murder … and our government should not be able to interfere with that state’s rights.

  10. Leo says

    Graham is a tool.

    Slavery was explicitly accommodated in the Constitution which is why an amendment was eventually needed to remedy it.

    Marriage is not directly addressed anywhere in Constitution which is why marriage has been understood to be a matter that’s addressed and licensed at the state level. And also why no amendment is needed to the Constitution to allow for it.

  11. Dastius Krazitauc says

    Why are these three always together?

    Lindsie is so arrogant and fake. He never seems to have any genuine feeling about anything, or maybe that once, when he was gushing about and flirting with Justice John Roberts at his confirmation hearing.

  12. Walt NYC says

    I still cannot understand why any one of these old farts, particularly that prissy little closet queen Lindsey Graham, would be opposed to marriage equality. There is just no logical justification for their dismay.

  13. StillMarriedinCA says

    It’s appalling that many of our elected officials don’t know or don’t understand our history and how our government works. Every one of them made ignorant statements about basic and crucial aspects of our laws. They are either stupid or pretending to be stupid in order to advance their own crusty and bigoted views. Shame on them. They are failures as leaders of our country. The founding fathers would be disgusted.

  14. Patrick says

    So Lindsey’s point is that our Congress voted to prohibit slavery, so we also make gay marriage a federal constitutional amendment and see if it passes?

    Not so fast.

    If he really thinks that it was the “right thing” that our Congress got to vote on slavery in the 1800s, then that must mean that they could vote on it again today. Really, Lindsey? You think our Congress has teh right right to enslave half the population today?

    Of course not. Ending slavery was noble, but the way we did it was shameful.

    Basic civil rights should not be up for a vote by the comman man or our elected officials.

    I wish Piers had followed Lindsey’s wreckless statement to its logical conclusion.

  15. SC David says

    The mincing, prancing, prissy, precious, long-time bachelor Lindsey Graham is going to be the senior senator from South Carolina, now that Jim DeMint is retiring from the Senate to be a full-time right-wing fundraiser and probable 2016 presidential candidate as president of Heritage. Graham is a political cold sore. Louisiana Governor Edwin Edwards once bragged that the only way he’d lose an election was to be caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy. Can we set Lindsey up on a date?

  16. SMC says

    Did Graham actually watch Lincoln? In the movie I saw, a small group of leaders decided what the right policy was and forced it through at great cost. They did so against the will of “the people” (as represented with almost heavy-handed obviousness by a couple of visiting constituents in one of the movie’s first scenes) and are portrayed as heroes for it.

  17. CPT_Doom says

    I wonder if John McCain would be ok with the people passing a referendum that divorced people can only have civil unions or domestic partnerships subsequent to their divorce(s)? Me thinks the man who got a marriage license for wife #2 before his divorce was finalized with wife #1 would not be happy.

  18. Jim Stone says

    Let the people decide!” Yea..if that were the case interracial marriage would still be banned in parts of the deep South. I am sooo sick of people bringing up polygamy. SS marriage has been legal in Europe and Canada for years..where are all of the people clamoring for polygamous marriages there? Lindsey is the personification of internal homophobia.

  19. Houndentenor says

    The difference of course is that slavery was made legal by the Constitution and therefore an Amendment to that Constitution was required to make it illegal. You’d think a Senator would know that.

  20. Justin says

    We can bash these Senators all we’d like, I do occasionally as well. However, we have to admire the change in these legislative bodies over the last ten years. Prior, I’d find it hard to locate a single Senator who would side with gay couples on this issue. DOMA, passed with nearly unanimous support in the Senate in ’96. Lieberman retires in January, rest assured, his successor Chris Murphy is our ally in the Senate. Soon, the same will be said of McCain and his successor. It’s becoming increasingly difficult to be on their side of this argument. 😀

  21. Diogenes Arktos says

    More history… Even after slavery ended, it took a combination of people and all three branches of government to bring civil rights to African Americans.

  22. andrew says

    Look at those three old white guys and try to pick out which one is the f*g, which one graduated dead LAST in his Naval Academy class and crashed a lot of planes and which one is an old Jew who doesn’t know left from right.

  23. Mike G says

    Lindsey Graham overlooks a key component re: the slavery issue. When slavery was abolished in the 1860s, public opinion did not support that outlook. The majority of Americans did NOT support abolishing slavery. Kinda puts a big ol’ hole in your argument.

Leave A Reply