* This week, Congresswoman Judy Biggert was asked about her vote for the Paul Ryan budget plan, which Democrats have decried as a radical proposal that would “end Medicare as we know it.” Biggert has always campaigned as a moderate, so this Ryan vote was somewhat out of character for her. Her explanation…
“The Ryan budget is right because it’s a plan. It’s on the table. And let’s, let’s, we have to move ahead, we can’t just sit there and keep on the spending.”
Pro Same-Sex-Marriage PAC Backs Candidate Who Equates Gay Marriage With Bigamy, Polygamy
American Unity PAC, a Republican super PAC aimed at expanding support for same-sex marriage, was announced with great fanfare in June. But it may not be living up to the hype: one of the congressional candidates it’s supporting with hundreds of thousands in TV ads is not only publicly opposed to same-sex marriage, she also just equated the practice with polygamy and bigamy.
Rep. Judy Biggert (R-IL) may not be what the establishment who fawned over American Unity PAC had in mind when the group was announced.
At a press conference after a debate Wednesday night, Biggert explained that she’s “close” to supporting same-sex marriage rights, but is “not there yet.” Then she said the issue is best left to the states, equating same-sex marriage laws with the universally-accepted illegal acts of bigamy and polygamy.
“It is a state issue,” Biggert said. “We don’t have polygamy and bigamy and all of these things in the federal government. It’s the states that take care of that.”
Biggert didn’t “equate” the two issues. Marriage, in all its forms, has historically been regulated by the states. Moderate Republicans have in the past several years opposed federal bans on gay marriage. This isn’t exactly new stuff. It’s only in relatively recent history that a push has been made for a federal law to allow gay marriage at the state level. Biggert says she’s moving in that direction, but is not there yet.
* In other news, Charlie Cook has moved this race from “Tossup” to “Lean Democrat.”
–Then she said the issue is best left to the states, equating same-sex marriage laws with the universally-accepted illegal acts of bigamy and polygamy.–
Polygamy is not a “universally accepted” illegal act, and is, in fact, legal in parts of Africa and Asia. In other areas, bans are not enforced.
Bigamy is an expressly illegal act in countries with one-spouse laws.
But I don’t see the connections with monogamous same-sex marriage, at all.
In a way, an almost de-facto form of polygamy is allowed in the United States. There’s nothing preventing anyone from having relationships with multiple partners. You can only legally be married to one.
Put it this way: Clint Eastwood, for example, has seven children with five different partners, only two of whom he’s ever married. But he’s supported them all financially at one time or another.
“The Ponzi scheme is right because it’s a plan. It’s on the table. And let’s, let’s, we have to move ahead, we can’t just sit there and keep on the spending.”
Ask someone in a binational same-sex couple if this is a federal issue, and you’ll understand why it is so important that DOMA gets overturned. From Immigration Equality: “Unfortunately, under current law, lesbian and gay American citizens and lawful permanent residents are discriminated against and cannot sponsor their spouses or partners for immigration benefits.”
It’s not a state issue as long as the Defense of Marriage Act remains federal law.
Biggert can’t have it both ways. She voted to require the federal government to enforce DOMA, attempting to force the Obama administration to continue defending the law that renders any state passed marriage equality meaningless in terms of tax status and federal benefits.
Does she regret that vote? Would she vote to repeal DOMA? Those are better questions to ask her.
==Why are liberals shocked when they throw all the definitions out the window and then wonder why nothing is defined? ==
Why do conservatives care? I thought you were for keeping the goverment out of people’s lives. Get off of your high horse and worry about something more important. If my partner and I married it wouldn’t affect you one bit.
She may not have equated same-sex marriage with polygamy, bigamy, et al, but she did draw a link between them by even bringing it up. So why did she need to bring them up at all?
- Chevy owner/Ford County - Friday, Oct 26, 12 @ 2:56 pm:
Marriage is not exclusively a state issue and hasn’t been since 1862 when congress passed the Morrill Act forbidding plural marriage. The feds have continued asserting their role in marriage with Loving v. Virginia which prevented states from prohibiting inter-racial marriages and of course, DOMA which precludes the federal government from recognizing any marriage other than between one man and one woman at any given time…even if the marriage is sanctioned by one of the states.
- Liberty First - Friday, Oct 26, 12 @ 11:56 am:
Why are liberals shocked when they throw all the definitions out the window and then wonder why nothing is defined?
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Oct 26, 12 @ 12:01 pm:
Illinois Republican Firewall for 3 Incumbent Congressional seats … From “most vulnerable” to “least vulnerable”, according to Oswego Willy
(That and $4.25 will get you a Starbucks Coffee, and really over $4 dollars for coffee, who pays … sorry, I digress…)
*Walsh/Duckworth, *Biggert/Foster, *Dold/Schneider
All 3 could change hands, fairly easily. I had Biggert behind Dold, but now… Biggert looks to be fading fast …
- wordslinger - Friday, Oct 26, 12 @ 12:23 pm:
–Then she said the issue is best left to the states, equating same-sex marriage laws with the universally-accepted illegal acts of bigamy and polygamy.–
Polygamy is not a “universally accepted” illegal act, and is, in fact, legal in parts of Africa and Asia. In other areas, bans are not enforced.
Bigamy is an expressly illegal act in countries with one-spouse laws.
But I don’t see the connections with monogamous same-sex marriage, at all.
In a way, an almost de-facto form of polygamy is allowed in the United States. There’s nothing preventing anyone from having relationships with multiple partners. You can only legally be married to one.
Put it this way: Clint Eastwood, for example, has seven children with five different partners, only two of whom he’s ever married. But he’s supported them all financially at one time or another.
That could make anyone yell at a stool.
- MrJM - Friday, Oct 26, 12 @ 12:27 pm:
“The Ponzi scheme is right because it’s a plan. It’s on the table. And let’s, let’s, we have to move ahead, we can’t just sit there and keep on the spending.”
Come on, Rich! Judy’s argument is iron clad.
– MrJM
- Unequal - Friday, Oct 26, 12 @ 12:33 pm:
Ask someone in a binational same-sex couple if this is a federal issue, and you’ll understand why it is so important that DOMA gets overturned. From Immigration Equality: “Unfortunately, under current law, lesbian and gay American citizens and lawful permanent residents are discriminated against and cannot sponsor their spouses or partners for immigration benefits.”
- 47th Ward - Friday, Oct 26, 12 @ 12:36 pm:
It’s not a state issue as long as the Defense of Marriage Act remains federal law.
Biggert can’t have it both ways. She voted to require the federal government to enforce DOMA, attempting to force the Obama administration to continue defending the law that renders any state passed marriage equality meaningless in terms of tax status and federal benefits.
Does she regret that vote? Would she vote to repeal DOMA? Those are better questions to ask her.
- Unequal - Friday, Oct 26, 12 @ 12:41 pm:
47th ward - exactly. Thank you.
- wordslinger - Friday, Oct 26, 12 @ 12:43 pm:
In reality, the last time Congress passed a real annual budget — and not just continuing resolutions or omnibus spending bills — was 1996.
And that’s just for spending that doesn’t include Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and interest on the debt, which have been on automatic pilot.
- Demoralized - Friday, Oct 26, 12 @ 1:15 pm:
==Why are liberals shocked when they throw all the definitions out the window and then wonder why nothing is defined? ==
Why do conservatives care? I thought you were for keeping the goverment out of people’s lives. Get off of your high horse and worry about something more important. If my partner and I married it wouldn’t affect you one bit.
- Skeeter - Friday, Oct 26, 12 @ 2:01 pm:
“Why are liberals shocked when they throw all the definitions out the window and then wonder why nothing is defined?”
Interesting. By the way, how do you define “liberty”?
- Shoeless - Friday, Oct 26, 12 @ 2:33 pm:
She may not have equated same-sex marriage with polygamy, bigamy, et al, but she did draw a link between them by even bringing it up. So why did she need to bring them up at all?
- Chevy owner/Ford County - Friday, Oct 26, 12 @ 2:56 pm:
Marriage is not exclusively a state issue and hasn’t been since 1862 when congress passed the Morrill Act forbidding plural marriage. The feds have continued asserting their role in marriage with Loving v. Virginia which prevented states from prohibiting inter-racial marriages and of course, DOMA which precludes the federal government from recognizing any marriage other than between one man and one woman at any given time…even if the marriage is sanctioned by one of the states.