Donald Rumsfeld | Gay Marriage | Larry King | News

Donald Rumsfeld Concerned Gay Marriage Will Lead to Polygamy: VIDEO


Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who supported 'DADT' and repeal and considers him a civil rights advocate, tells Larry King that he's concerned same-sex marriage might lead to polygamy.

“You know, I'm, I guess, of a generation that I don't ... I listened to some of the Supreme Court justices and one of them said, 'Well what's next after that? Is it two people, three people?'”


(via huffpost)

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Oops. I left out the part of him being an ignorant d-bag of a political has-been whose kind are dying off at an increasing rate.

    And he should join them as soon as possible.

    Posted by: MikeBoston | May 22, 2013 12:08:30 PM

  2. In 1967, he would have said, "What's next once we allow blacks to marry whites?" I hope he doesn't have any LGBT children or grandchildren, for their sake.

    Posted by: Rick | May 22, 2013 12:09:10 PM

  3. Why isn't Rummy in jail where he belongs?

    Posted by: David Hearne | May 22, 2013 12:11:03 PM

  4. I can't believe he's still talking about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Still with the "unit cohesion" and "how to implement it."

    How to implement it: Stop discharging out gay soldiers.


    Posted by: Clarknt67 | May 22, 2013 12:17:04 PM

  5. Notice he's not saying he wants to stop all the existing polygamy. There's plenty of it, enough to have multiple reality shows on TV starring polygamists.


    Posted by: Joe Bua | May 22, 2013 12:17:15 PM

  6. So says the war criminal.

    Posted by: Michael | May 22, 2013 12:19:56 PM

  7. Your time is over.
    You disgraced yourself and lied repeatedly to the American people.
    You aided and abetted the commission of war crimes contrary to Geneva Conventions to which your country was a signatory.
    You should now rightly be arrested and tried.

    And most of all your stupidity led to the unnecessary deaths of US soldiers and thousands of Iraqi civilians. There are thousands of soldiers at the very minute working out at physiotherapy just because you and your goons concocted a fable for war. And you did not have the ball$ to say no to the Bush / Cheney henchmen.
    Your name will live as an example of arrogant hubris, and your self satisfied pronounciations will live as the ramblings of an old *art.
    So now you have a book to sell ?
    What insane clown would want to read anything you vomit up ?

    Posted by: JackFknTwist | May 22, 2013 12:20:37 PM

  8. Die already, you old war criminal!

    Posted by: johnny | May 22, 2013 12:21:01 PM

  9. This character should be sitting in a federal prison cell. He has a lengthy past of dubious activities inside and outside government. Well, in fact, they're both one in the same in the kind of fascist state we live in.

    Posted by: ratbastard | May 22, 2013 12:23:27 PM

  10. Not to sound like I'm defending him, because I'm not, the man is an idiot. You can't deny someone rights based on "what might happen" or by the slippery slope argument. "What if" doesn't hold weight legally and it shouldn't.

    That being said, I don't think it's wrong to ask the question, what is next? Once gay marriage is inevitably legal, who will make the next move towards marriage equality? More than likely it will be polygamists. Which opens up a huge can of worms. Why shouldn't multiple consenting adults get married if they want to? I don't know, just interesting to talk about and completely unrelated to gay marriage.

    Posted by: WhatWhat | May 22, 2013 12:23:48 PM

  11. what could happen next if we free all the slaves ? Cows and chickens want to be free too.
    what’s next after women are allow to vote ? Allowing cats to vote.
    what’s next after Donald Rumsfeld stepping outside his house or into his car ? A lot of things could happen, but it doesn't stop him from leaving his house.

    Posted by: PE | May 22, 2013 12:32:57 PM

  12. IF polygamists do the grass works hard work, elect people that are polygamist at heart, march, protest, write letters and state they want polygamy, maybe after 80 years of struggle they can marry 25 women. That is the beauty of America. They have the right, they just have to do the work. Like Gay Americans did.

    Posted by: Sargon Bighorn | May 22, 2013 12:38:07 PM

  13. Would he just die already. That way I can sing the ding dong wicked witch song.

    Posted by: MarcosLB | May 22, 2013 12:47:26 PM

  14. Donald Rumsfeld doesn't really have that much longer to live. Thus his views and personal opinions are stupid but more importantly, mute.

    Posted by: Mike Ryan | May 22, 2013 12:48:25 PM

  15. Another grinning jackass courtesy of the W. Administration. He and Cheney are twin sons of different mothers, and let's hope they fade away sooner than later.

    Posted by: Jack M | May 22, 2013 12:50:30 PM

  16. it's a weird non-argument.

    it's basically saying that they have no problem with "gay marriage", but have a problem with something else that they fear legalizing "gay marriage" will lead to.

    which makes no sense. you can't be against something because you're against something else that's not related to it.

    but hey, Rummy's a hack.

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | May 22, 2013 12:55:30 PM

  17. To all those falling for the slippery-slope "if now two lesbians/gays, why not more than two consenting adults?" argument:

    The reason it won't happen anytime soon is that in practice polygamous marriage doesn't work like two-party marriage.

    In practice, the male leader in the polygamous marriage usually holds all of the power, especially in financial matters. The women usually participate in a less-than-100%-free-will manner-- the coercive power of religious fervor and/or cult membership being behind just about all of these arrangements. And what happens when one of the wives wants out? Do all of the assets of the marriage get liquidated and parceled out to the participants? How about the children? It's a legal mess.

    It is in the state's best interests-- and in the interest of a civilized society that ideally would treat women as equal to men (we know it doesn't happen yet, but let's pretend...)-- to keep polygamy illegal. Let's face it-- most polygamists and their wives are just not quite right in the head. They need medication and full-time nursing supervision, not marriage licenses.

    Posted by: One of the CA 36,000 | May 22, 2013 12:56:21 PM

  18. WhatWhat - I too think its a legitimate question because people who support polygamy generally use the argument that "if gays are allowed to marry then polygamy should be legal". I've seen this over and over of late. I personally think the two are completely different since gay marriage is asking for the same rights as others currently have (one partner) whereas polygamy is asking for more rights than others currently have. I don't believe having a state supported harem is a basic right.

    Most important to me, polygamy is sexist becuase allows males to have multiple wives while requiring women to be monogamous and have a single husband. People try to remove the gender issue out of it but you can't and because of this I believe polygamy would impact heterosexual marriage in a way gay marriage does not.

    Posted by: anna | May 22, 2013 1:04:32 PM

  19. if legalizing gay marriage would lead to polygamy then wouldn't the pro-polygamy folks (who are...what? ultra-right mormons?) be jumping on the gay marriage bandwagon, so as to best make THEIR marriages legal?

    last i checked they're not. why? well, they're anti-gay.

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | May 22, 2013 1:06:59 PM

  20. lead to poligamy? all those bible thumpers surely read the old testament, and realize poligamy was common practice in biblical times. how 'bout a real return to "traditional marriage"???

    Posted by: northalabama | May 22, 2013 1:10:11 PM

  21. Polygamy would be more likely to follow from straight marriage than from gay marriage because it has a completely heterosexual history. And if polygamists want to make their case to the people and the Supreme Court, nothing is stopping them. It's a red herring in regards to whether gay couples are included or excluded in two-person marriage.

    As for Rumsfeld, you're time is over, buddy. Be thankful you're not in prison in your post-sunset years.

    Posted by: Ernie | May 22, 2013 1:21:10 PM

  22. Rumsfeld quoting Scalia. Ima throw up now.

    Posted by: JONES | May 22, 2013 1:21:29 PM

  23. Oh, now Mr. Our-troops-are-fungible-assets gets a "conscience" (as if that were really possible). He's a psychopath, if not a sociopath, who has no understanding or empathy towards anyone but himself. Time to put the old dog away since he seems to have incontinence of the mouth.

    Posted by: woodroad34d | May 22, 2013 1:32:56 PM

  24. Loving commitment of same sex couples is immoral. Starting an unjust war and murdering thousands for oil and profit and illegally detaining and torturing prisoners is perfectly acceptable. The man is vile. I wouldn't waste urine on this POS.

    Posted by: candideinnc | May 22, 2013 1:39:39 PM

  25. We can say what we want here, as it is of no consequence, but rational people generally deal with objections through a rational analysis.

    Not all slippery slopes are irrational, but this one is. The problem is that it doesn't seem irrational to people who have no reason to question their political position when it validates their religious prejudice.

    Gay marriage leading to polygamy is an irrational slippery slope for a couple of reasons. The most obvious reason is that polygamy inarguably predates gay marriage and was at various times and places in history the norm or the norm for the ruling class. The second is that even if we restrict the timeline for consideration: divorce and interracial marriage are the biggest changes in marriage in the last 500 years. If anything, it was divorce and miscegenation which led to gay marriage by that line of reasoning.

    The problem is that every dire prediction made prior to desegregation has come true. That's rather difficult to argue with, other than the fact it has nothing to do with gay rights or gay marriage.

    Posted by: David Hearne | May 22, 2013 1:40:04 PM

  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment


« «The Real Danger of the IRS, DOJ 'Scandals'« «