Skip to main content

Pennsylvania Governor Corbett's attorneys compare gay marriage to child marriage

In suburban Philadelphia, Willis D. Bruce Hanes has issued more than 150 same-sex marriage licenses, and Republican Governor Tom Corbett's administration has filed a lawsuit on the matter to invalidate those very marriages. Corbett's attorney's went on to say that the marriage licenses can't be defended in court due to a 1996 law saying that marriage is between a man and a woman, before making this strange and ridiculous comparison:

"Had the clerk issued marriage licenses to 12-year-olds in violation of state law, would anyone seriously contend that each 12-year-old ... is entitled to a hearing on the validity of his 'license'?"

Before the case comes to a close, I have a feeling Corbett's attorneys will also make the following comparisons to same-sex marriages:

- "Had the clerk issued marriage licenses to mannequins in violation of state law, would anyone seriously contend that each mannequin is entitled to hearing on the validity of its 'license'?"

- "Had the clerk issued marriage licenses to elephants in violation of state law, would anyone seriously contend that each elephant is entitled to hearing on the validity of its 'license'?"

- "Had the clerk issued marriage licenses to dead people in violation of state law, would anyone seriously contend that each dead person is entitled to hearing on the validity of its 'license'?"

Had the attorneys thought before they spoke, they wouldn't have come across like complete idiots in comparing a group of people (homosexuals) whose marriage rights are growing by the week it seems, to a group (kids) that will never have any marriage rights. That would be like me saying prior to 1920, "It's against state law for women to vote. If we issued voting rights to fetuses in violation of state law, would anyone seriously contend that each fetus is entitled to vote?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/28/gay-marriage-children_n_3833749.html

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...