1. MikeBoston says

    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.

  2. Rick says

    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.

  3. Clarknt67 says

    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.


  4. says

    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 ?

  5. ratbastard says

    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.

  6. WhatWhat says

    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.

  7. PE says

    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.

  8. Sargon Bighorn says

    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.

  9. Mike Ryan says

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

  10. Jack M says

    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.

  11. says

    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.

  12. One of the CA 36,000 says

    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.

  13. anna says

    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.

  14. says

    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.

  15. northalabama says

    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”???

  16. says

    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.

  17. woodroad34d says

    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.

  18. candideinnc says

    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.

  19. David Hearne says

    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.

  20. rroberts says

    Personally, I have nothing against polygamy IF it involves consenting adults. But if polygamy is one day allowed, the scope would have to include polyandry (one woman, numerous husbands). As already pointed out, though, it’s gonna take a long time for any of that to actually happen legally. There have been gay multiple arrangements all along, either multiple partners, daddies, boys, slaves, whatever you want to call it. And we know that will continue with or without polygamy/polyandry laws.

  21. Canadian Observer says

    We have seen the face of evil, it looks a lot like Rumsfeld. Of course it looks a lot like Kissinger too. It is amazing how individuals like this not only walk free, but that they are treated respectfully by the media, who obviously have never heard of the Nuremberg principles.

    “Principle I states, “Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment.”


    Principle III states, “The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.””

  22. Caliban says

    We only have a few examples in the US to go on when it comes to polygamy, mostly Mormon history. I don’t know much about how it worked historically but more the experiences with more “modern” Mormon Fundamentalist groups has NOT been good!

    First off, polygamy is almost always one man, many wives. The problem is that the gender breakdown is 50% +/- so if one man has 5 wives then 4 go without. That puts community “elders” in competition with younger males for available “wives,” which over time seem to skew younger and younger, devolving into pedophilia and/or patriarchal sex abuse. At least in Mormon Fundamentalist communities the way they deal with those “extra” boys is to abandon them, largely uneducated and without skills, for the outside world (read: social services) to deal with. So that’s how it works in the “micro” sense at least.

    And unless they happen to snag a TV deal, they don’t have the resources to supports the wives and their children. (Even historically multiple wives was reserved for the tribal “royalty” and powerful. Peasants couldn’t afford multiple wives.) Since most of these polygamous groups believe in a subservient role for women and many don’t work. Unless the man earns a very high wage the upkeep of the “family” once again falls on….. taxpayers and social services.

    So even on it’s face the impact of polygamy is COMPLETELY different than gay marriage. The instances of gay men and lesbians might not be exactly equal but the come close to balancing out so no one is “denied” potential mates. In gay couples there is no presumed inequality and either both work or if they decide one of them will stay at home, the burden doesn’t (at least usually) fall on the state.

  23. says

    @ Anna et al :

    Could you please refer me to what you say you have seen over and over……that polygamists want multiple partners ?
    I’ve looked in the Netherlands in vain for any such demands.
    But you seem to know what countries currently with same sex marriage that have demands for polygamy.
    What countries specifically ?

  24. anna says

    JackFnTwist – There is a polygamist sect here in Canada that used to trade girls with Warren Jeffs sect. The men were charged and the issue ended up going before the provincial supreme court. The defense was based on religious freedom but the lawyer also argued that “If (homosexuals) can marry, what is the reason that public policy says one person can’t marry more than one person?”. They lost but still the issue is one that will be coming up again I am sure. And even though the religious groups arguing for legalization are generally anti-gay, they still opportunistically use gay marriage as a ploy and also use gender neutral language to disguise the sexism. Evidence in the supreme court did show that societies where polygamy is practiced the rights and well-being of females and low-status males suffered.

  25. Cara Kociela says

    I did not hear him say that HE was worried, it sounded more like a quote from a Supreme Court Justice.
    As a resident of So. UT for almost 20 years it was very obvious to me that the law turned a blind eye to the FLDS where girls (some as young as 12) were being married off to older men. It was always sad to me to see a young FLDS girl with a baby in her arms and wonder if it was her sibling or her child.
    My husband worked at the local paper for 16 years as the local news editor (including the years of the Jeffs trials). With all the research he did during that time he found many instances of the “lack of law” in this area and the corruption going on. He wrote ‘plygs’ a fact-based journalistic novel of the FLDS.
    They speak of the “slippery slope” … there should be none. What the people of the FLDS and the UAB practice as their “lifestyle” is SO far from it. People want to look at polygamy along with the LGBT and it is a totally different world. The LGBT just want to marry ONE person and have a life the way other monogamous couples live. The Polygamous world is based on religion. They hide behind it, they survive on the words of a prophet that has ended himself and several others in jail. What good can come of a “religion” that 12, 13, 14 yr old girls are “married” to the “highest bidder” (tithing and favors) within a “church”?
    Polygamy that is taught through religion is NOT a choice. They live it or they are forever damned. They live it or they will not see their children in the afterlife. They live it or they will be cast out with nothing… no home, no food, no family, no children, no friends… NOTHING…
    Tell me where this is a choice! Tell me how this should be legal! Explain how this is so slippery… those that speak of this slope have NO idea what true polygamy practiced by the FLDS and the AUB and other groups are doing to these women and children… there is no slope… there is a mountain and our politicians are terrified to climb it!

  26. rick scatorum says

    9/11 gave him the excuse he needed to invade a country who had not harmed the us

    Iraq is a bigger disaster than it ever was under hussein

  27. walter says

    this from a man who was in charge when the abu ghraid prison was happening and the torturing of prisoners was a standard procedure. he was also there when we invaded iraq and looked for weapons of mass destruction

  28. says

    @ Anna :
    Just because some loser in a remote part of Canada raises a notion that has just flickered across his mind is hardly a basis for concluding that in all countries where there is same sex marriage there will be an otcry for polygamy !

  29. EchtKultig says

    Scorned Republican figure needs to score some points with tea party morons so he can keep commanding 6 figure lecture circuit fees. Nothing to see here. Who cares what he would think anyhow? He’s lucky he isn’t being charged with war crimes.

  30. Bernie says

    I guess I don’t get the jump from gay to polygamy at all! I guess if I wanted to be semi-logical, I could say Mr. Rumsfeld needs to be educated on homosexuality…..but since these kind of folks are not very logical, I just think anyone who would even put being gay in the same thought or lack of thought in the samne vein as polygamy is just plain stupid, ignorant, illogical and irrational

  31. James says

    There is no story here. When asked whether he supports same sex marriage, he gave a rambling answer and eventually said “I don’t know.”

  32. Bollux says

    Donald Rumsfeld should be more concerned that his own past actions over the last 20 years will land him a choice place in the 8th Circle of Lower Hell.

  33. Carlie says

    Accept that Congress outlawed polygamy in 1862 and the Supreme Court upheld that in 1878—facts that Justice Scalia should know. The Republican rhetoric relies heavily on the ignorance of the listener.

  34. Mary says

    “Accept that Congress outlawed polygamy in 1862 and the Supreme Court upheld that in 1878—facts that Justice Scalia should know”

    Yes, but this isn’t etched in stone. A subsequent Congress could make polygamy legal – and a future Court could decide that polygamoius families have a constitutional right to marriage equality. Wasn’t there a Court case in the early 1970’s where the SCOTUS ruled that the constituion didn’t require the legalization of gay marriage?

Leave A Reply