Gay Marriage | News | Saxby Chambliss

BigGayDeal.com

Sen. Saxby Chambliss: 'I'm Not Gay. So I'm not Going to Marry One'

Chambliss

Politico asked anti-equality lawmakers if their views had changed on same-sex marriage given the shift in popular opinion and their colleague Rob Portman's announcement last week that he supports marriage equality.

Said Senator Saxby Chambliss: “I’m not gay. So I’m not going to marry one.”

Nobody else seems to be shifting either:

“I’m still not supportive of it,” said Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), who is up for reelection in 2014, adding he still backs the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act that the Supreme Court is reviewing.

“I’m with South Carolina,” said GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham, who also faces voters next year. “I believe in traditional marriage — between a man and a woman, without animosity. I don’t mind if people are able to transfer their property, visit their loved ones in hospitals, but marriage to me, I’ve stayed with the concept of traditional marriage.”

Well, maybe one of them:

Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, a moderate Democrat from a red state who just won reelection last year, suggested in an interview that her views are evolving even if she doesn’t yet back gay marriage.

“I think there’s a lot of shift going on in the country, and I’m thinking about it,” said McCaskill, who called Portman’s announcement “courageous.”

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. ...So does that mean if he's not female, he's not going to marry one of those either?

    Posted by: RC | Mar 21, 2013 10:01:20 AM


  2. And a great sigh of relief was heard throughout Gayville.

    Posted by: Steve Scarborough | Mar 21, 2013 10:02:21 AM


  3. This actually seems like a good argument FOR gay marriage. People who don't like gay marriage just shouldn't have one. They should not, however, impose their personal beliefs upon others by denying them equal rights.

    Posted by: Mike Lockard | Mar 21, 2013 10:14:52 AM


  4. It's interesting that elected officials continue to say their views are not changing or they have changed. McCain said his religious views won't let him support Gay Marriage. These are elected officals whose only job is to support the US Constitution and those Right and Freedoms granted within it. Theirs is not to support their own agenda, their religious or biblical ideology but to give the Rights granted in the constitution. The 14th Amendment is very clear yet this neanderthals continue to spew their personal opinions or their religious views.

    Posted by: Jon | Mar 21, 2013 10:19:26 AM


  5. Out of the mouths of GOPers comes continual proof that this Neanderthal Party is NOT going to change its positions to make itself more acceptable to member groups of the Obama re-election coalition. GOPer head Reince Priebus wasted that $10 million on a study to make his party more acceptable to certain voters - voters absolutely necessary to keep GOPer pols competitive at the federal level. It ain't gonna happen any time soon. It's not the message deliverer, stupid, IT'S THE MESSAGE.

    Posted by: HadenoughBS | Mar 21, 2013 10:29:14 AM


  6. RE: "Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, a moderate Democrat " -- NO. You can not call someone a moderate Democrat who does not support civil equality.

    P.S. I'm sooooo glad she's "thinking about it" -- it takes all of 3 seconds to realize that religion has no relevance to civil marriage and all tax paying citizens deserve civil equality. She's had 4 years... WHAT THE F*** is she still "thinking" about?

    Posted by: Strepsi | Mar 21, 2013 10:29:15 AM


  7. I'm not a Republican. So I'm not going to vote for one.

    Posted by: David | Mar 21, 2013 10:30:47 AM


  8. Just a bunch of old, white men who can't understand that the world is changing and they are being left behind.

    Posted by: Jack M | Mar 21, 2013 10:34:15 AM


  9. Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) needs to be replaced by a true "moderate" Democrat.

    Posted by: Mike | Mar 21, 2013 10:44:11 AM


  10. They should ask the useless Susan Collins of Maine and the revolting Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, both of whom represent states with marriage equality and where voters broadly support equality.

    Collins, regularly and erroneously hailed by Log Cabin types as the savior of DADT repeal amidst Presidential indifference despite having voted to filibuster repeal on multiple occasions earlier in 2010, has repeatedly refused to express support for marriage rights in Maine or for repeal of DOMA, as her equally useless former colleague Olympia Snowe did as well. http://www.washingtonblade.com/2012/10/11/collins-still-considering-maine-marriage-ballot-initiative/ and http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/09/over-the-course-of-2011.html Independent Senator Angus King from Maine is an equality supporter. Collins is no doubt scared to death of the Tea Party wing of the Maine party, which seized the governor's seat in 2010 and which intimidated Snowe into retiring lest she face a primary challenge, and is perfectly willing to place her own political interests above principle. She's up for election again next year. She's useless and wrong on so many other issues (budgets, taxes, health care) that I will very much be hoping that she gets taken out in a primary challenge.

    Then there's the revolting Kelly Ayotte, who has replaced Lieberman as the New England lap dog for McCain and Graham. She's awful and hopefully can be taken out in 2016. Here's what she had to say when running against a more conservative Republican in her 2010 primary race:

    Repeal state gay marriage law; don't repeal DOMA

    Q: As you know, NH legalized gay marriage. Can you tell us your position on gay marriage?
    A: I absolutely support and believe in marriage as between a man and a woman and I do think it's unfortunate that our state has made a different decision on that. Many of you who are out there who are out there working at the state level, or running for state office, I commend your efforts to repeal that law here in the state of N.H. and I think that's very important. I wish you all well and I would love to help with any effort to get our law back in the right place on this.
    Q: If elected US Senator, would you support or oppose the Federal Defense of Marriage Act?
    A: I do not think we should overturn DOMA, because it's absolutely for states to decide marriage. We don't want one state's decision impacting another state. So I would vote against any repeal of DOMA because of that.

    Posted by: Patric | Mar 21, 2013 10:47:18 AM


  11. This USA, is the only country where I have heard religion being quoted in the context of determining legislation;

    "in God we trust".
    "One nation under God"
    "So help me God"

    I fail to see any connection whatever beween running a country, a society , an economy, and the private internal beliefs of the citizens.
    Politicians who want to impose Sharia Law are unacceptable; why should Sharia Law be part of Civil Law ? ( substitute whatever religious law you wish).
    As for "I'm not gay so I'm not going to marry one.".......
    Were you being asked to marry one ?
    Or is this just another smart-alek answer .
    And just because you are not going to marry one, WTF has that got to do with my right to marry one ?
    What a dried up old prune !

    Posted by: JackFknTwist | Mar 21, 2013 10:56:52 AM


  12. When politicians in a "small government" political party have the same stance on a public policy matter as the Pope.

    As for the "Democrat" in the group: maybe a Democrat in the 1950s?

    Posted by: Thomas | Mar 21, 2013 11:05:05 AM


  13. Most of the God stuff was added in the 20th century, too.

    Posted by: Thomas | Mar 21, 2013 11:06:22 AM


  14. He quotes Lindsy Graham!

    The gay self-loathing closeted queen. Maybe they are BF's....interesting he uses him as a reference point!

    Posted by: BRAINS | Mar 21, 2013 11:06:45 AM


  15. Mike L - I had the same reaction. Glad to see Sen. Chambliss articulating the MORAL way to oppose gay marriage: don't get gay married. By the same token, don't reserve for yourself a legal right you would deny to others: if *I* am gay, and *I* want to get gay married, then I damn well oughta be able to do so - just as you, a straight person, were able to get straight married.

    Glad we're all getting on the same page about this, finally.

    Posted by: Scottevill | Mar 21, 2013 11:06:45 AM


  16. I can't believe no one has outed Ms Graham yet. But then maybe no one has low enough self-esteem to sleep with him so no one has the dirt. Ugh I just threw up in my mouth a little. I'm so sick of that shrill pathetic closet case saying something stupid on cable news almost every day.

    Posted by: Houndentenor | Mar 21, 2013 11:36:44 AM


  17. i don't get RC's first post...
    what does it mean?

    Posted by: mikey | Mar 21, 2013 12:11:31 PM


  18. WOW! This is what the Republican position comes down to folks.

    "I'm Not Gay. So I'm not Going to Marry One"

    In order to be a self respecting conservative Republican you have to be a selfish prick. It's in your DNA.

    By his own admission and his own argument because he is not gay he does not need to marry someone who is.

    Let's look at what else you are not...
    "I'm not -----. So I'm not going to concern myself with their rights."
    (Replace the ----- with women, blacks, hispanics, gays, asians, minorities, etc.)

    These Republicans are not willing to change any of their positions... just the way they "communicate" their positions. (Lipstick on a pig.)

    This form of communication is exactly what the Republican party needs if it wants to move forward with the future alienation of the electorate. :-)


    Posted by: Javier | Mar 21, 2013 12:22:37 PM


  19. u don't have to marry one, u just need to let one marry one

    Posted by: t | Mar 21, 2013 12:28:17 PM


  20. Shorter GOP - if it doesn't affect me (and my wallet) I don't care.

    Posted by: e.c. | Mar 21, 2013 12:57:52 PM


  21. Using Saxby Chambliss' "logic" should we also assume that since he is not African-American, Jewish, Hispanic or Asian, he is not going to marry "one" of those either?

    Of course, should he want to marry his cousin, that is not a problem in Georgia.

    Posted by: Surely U Jest | Mar 21, 2013 2:28:44 PM


  22. Well, at least he finally knows it is not a choice. Baby steps is all we can hope for from these old GOP farts.

    Posted by: Rickseaside | Mar 21, 2013 2:43:30 PM


  23. That's a bit of snark if ever I've heard some. He probably thought it was hysterical.

    Unless the primaries are reformed, we're going to get immoderate candidates. A system of run-off elections would probably work better. We could avoid the primaries and just see who gets past 50% first in the general election, though no system is perfect.

    Posted by: anon | Mar 21, 2013 2:44:42 PM


  24. Sometimes, we do indeed wonder about the political acumen on this site. Chambliss's statement was not a condemnation - far from it. It was actually a subtle shift in tone (as was featured in many other remarks as well).

    Posted by: niles | Mar 21, 2013 5:13:04 PM


  25. He's just touchy because his name sounds like an actor's porn name.

    Posted by: Dee Vee | Mar 21, 2013 11:18:20 PM


  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «Nation's Most Influential Pediatrics Group Backs Gay Marriage« «