DOMA | Family Research Council | John Fleming | News | Supreme Court | Tony Perkins

Rep. John Fleming Warns of Sham Marriages if DOMA Overturned: AUDIO

On Monday night's Family Research Council show Washington Watch, Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) joined hate group leader Tony Perkins in a conversation about today's SCOTUS marriage decision, Right Wing Watch reports.

FlemingFleming warned that overturning DOMA would lead to sham marriages.

Fleming: But you know, it’s interesting. Humans can be very innovative sometimes and I can actually see where two people of the same sex, even who are not themselves homosexual in any way, could find a way to get married just for the purpose of sharing those benefits and only for practical reasons. So you can see the ramifications if the Supreme Court comes out and allows that.

Perkins: No question about it. And there’s no way to necessarily verify that. What you can then set up is a case where you discriminate against couples who are in some jurisdictions, because if they move their marriage is not recognized. And they could then be treated in a way that’s different than heterosexual couples that are cohabitating. It’s a mess once you go down this path.

Fleming: It is. It would be similar to marrying someone from a foreign country. Is it done for convenience? Did someone pay somebody to be married? I mean you can see how the whole institution of marriage could be demeaned. It could certainly be reduced in its importance and taken off the lofty place that we now hold marriage.

Listen below:

Fleming, of course, is the lawmaker responsible for the recent NDAA amendment expanding "conscious protections" that would allow a "license to bully" in the military based on religious beliefs.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. There are sham marriages now. Look at all the closeted gay men in government who are married with children. Keep grasping at straws, mongs.

    Posted by: Ryan | Jun 26, 2013 9:01:53 AM


  2. Excuse me, but we don't ask people why they are getting married. We just let them do so, because they have the right to do it.

    Posted by: Jack M | Jun 26, 2013 9:02:28 AM


  3. There are sham marriages between straight couples now. Britney Spears for 12 hours? Kim Kardashian. Mail order brides. WTF is this man talking about?

    Posted by: Reacenyc | Jun 26, 2013 9:06:22 AM


  4. Gingrich has three marriages and is a hero of traditional marriage. An couple that has been together for fifty years who want to get married are shams. Got it.

    Posted by: yuninv | Jun 26, 2013 9:09:53 AM


  5. This guy needs to stop basing his politics off of bad Adam Sandler movies, seriously. Men and women enter fraudulent marriages for all of the reasons he listed and more, I just don't understand why he's relating this to DOMA/same sex marriage at all..?

    also @ Reacenyc: he's not talking about quickly failed or annulled unions like the two you described, read what he said.

    Posted by: JMC | Jun 26, 2013 9:16:53 AM


  6. Yeah, because people of the opposite sex never do that...

    Posted by: Steve | Jun 26, 2013 9:27:00 AM


  7. I am from Canada so excuse my ignorance on the subject, but why are there so many groups in the U.S. whose sole purpose it seems is to stop marriage equality? They all have names like the Family Research Council and the National Organization for Marriage, but they never actually do anything to better the family or the sanctity of marriage. Wouldn't they be better off getting rid of no-fault divorce laws, or boycotting shows like The Bachelor which makes a mockery of courtship? No, they are so intent on denying loving, committed couples from the right to marry that they can't see how damaged the institution of marriage already is.

    I don't know why any sane person would give money to these organizations. They are clearly on the wrong side of history. We have had marriage equality in Canada for 10 years now and the wrath of God has yet to appear.

    Posted by: (the other)jamesintoronto | Jun 26, 2013 9:29:55 AM


  8. but this guy is a Repug from Louisiana. i remember something about a LA Repug marriage with diapers & a prostitute.... how can we think he's serious?

    Posted by: mike/ | Jun 26, 2013 9:48:28 AM


  9. Yes, because right now a heterosexual couldn't find another to enter into a sham marriage with so they are waiting to be able to marry the gay man or woman who, OF COURSE, is also waiting to be in a sham marriage. That would be the main way that marriage could be demeaned too, right?

    The perverted logic used by supposedly educated people, who have tricked the public into placing their small minds in office, is astounding. In order to satisfy their moral compass, they are dragging the rest of us down for their personal opinion. You have tipped your hat too far John Fleming, we are aware of who is financially backing you after this interview. A politician with true moral character, and a wish for advancement in America would never be associated with the likes of Tony Perkins unless there was a financial incentive. How much did you get to further their cause with your name?

    Posted by: Hey Darlin' | Jun 26, 2013 10:01:29 AM


  10. "Oh good, the gays can marry. I guess now that means we can break the law and get into a sham marriage because we wouldn't have broken the law without gay marriage."

    Said no one, ever.

    Posted by: kpo5 | Jun 26, 2013 10:01:35 AM


  11. said Larry Craig's wife "Sham Whatnow?"

    said Michelle Bachmann, "What's an orgasm?"

    Posted by: Little Kiwi | Jun 26, 2013 11:14:47 AM


  12. That toupee is a sham!

    Posted by: Steve | Jun 26, 2013 11:15:26 AM


  13. Right, Because sham marriages didn't exist before. I guess that means we better make heterosexual marriages illegal so men and women don't get married to each other for reasons that someone doesn't agree with.

    Posted by: FuryOfFirestorm | Jun 26, 2013 11:19:05 AM


  14. and because some people may abuse the system is ALWAYS a good reason to deny rights to people who will mostly NOT be abusing the system.

    Posted by: calpoidog | Jun 26, 2013 11:22:00 AM


  15. Why are there so many groups? Because federal tax law for charities and organizations makes politically motivated groups an easy way to raise a lot of cash and there's no restrictions on the pay of managers and committee members.

    Posted by: anon | Jun 26, 2013 12:33:50 PM


  16. Why are there so many groups?

    Citizens United.
    Courtesy of a**wipe corporatist Thomas and his heinous wife.

    Posted by: JONES | Jun 26, 2013 1:08:49 PM


  17. I'm assuming with his paycheck, he could afford a better wig and dye job.

    Posted by: woodroad34d | Jun 26, 2013 2:25:18 PM


  18. The memo about heteros having as many platonic friends of the opposite gender as well as same gender since the normalisation of feminism and gay rights might need to be reforwarded to these guys.

    Or at least the memo not having arrived is the only way I can see the stuff coming out of their mouths making sense to them.

    Posted by: rdiac | Jun 26, 2013 4:53:52 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel Addresses Pentagon LGBT Pride Event in Historic First: VIDEO« «