August 6, 2014 8:00 pm -

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott’s efforts to reinstate the state’s ban on same-sex marriage has received the support from more than 60 Texas lawmakers who signed an amicus brief on Monday arguing that recognition of gay marriage could lead to the legalization of incest, pedophilia and polygamy. The Republican-led rief states that U.S. District Judge Orlando L. Garcia’s February decision to strike down same sex marriage bans opened the door to a variety of unions that society has deemed unacceptable.

Greg Abbott looking totally not gay

Greg Abbott looking totally not gay

Members of the Texas Conservative Coalition, a caucus of the Legislature, filed the ridiculous brief on Monday.

63 members of the conservative group actually believe that same sex marriage is somehow equated with pedophilia and polygamy.

Lone Star Q reports:

The brief also argues that there is a rational basis for the marriage bans because legislators cited arguments they believed to be plausible in passing them.

“Another ground cited by supporters of Texas’s marriage laws and subsequently dismissed by the district court is that recognition of same-sex marriage ‘could lead to the recognition of bigamy, incest, pedophilia, and group marriage,’” the brief states. “As already discussed in this brief, restrictions on marriage relating to these moral considerations remain valid. Thus, the goal of actively trying to prevent those practices from becoming valid is entirely rational public policy….

Below is the full list of legislators who signed the Texas Conservative Coalition brief, which you can read in its entirety at the bottom of this post.

Brian Birdwell, Texas Senate
Donna Campbell, Texas Senate
Bob Deuell, Texas Senate
Craig Estes, Texas Senate
Troy Fraser, Texas Senate
Kelly Hancock, Texas Senate
Robert Nichols, Texas Senate
Dan Patrick, Texas Senate
Ken Paxton, Texas Senate
Charles Schwertner, Texas Senate
Larry Taylor, Texas Senate
Charles “Doc” Anderson, Texas House of Representatives
Trent Ashby, Texas House of Representatives
Cecil Bell, Jr., Texas House of Representatives
Dwayne Bohac, Texas House of Representatives Case: 14-50196 Document:
Dennis Bonnen, Texas House of Representatives
Greg Bonnen, Texas House of Representatives
Angie Chen Button, Texas House of Representatives
Tom Craddick, Texas House of Representatives
Brandon Creighton, Texas House of Representatives
Myra Crownover, Texas House of Representatives
Gary Elkins, Texas House of Representatives
Pat Fallon, Texas House of Representatives
Allen Fletcher, Texas House of Representatives
Dan Flynn, Texas House of Representatives
James Frank, Texas House of Representatives
John Frullo, Texas House of Representatives
Craig Goldman, Texas House of Representatives
Larry Gonzales, Texas House of Representatives
Lance Gooden, Texas House of Representatives
Linda Harper-Brown, Texas House of Representatives
Harvey Hilderbran, Texas House of Representatives
Bryan Hughes, Texas House of Representatives
Jason Isaac, Texas House of Representatives
Phil King, Texas House of Representatives
Tim Kleinschmidt, Texas House of Representatives
Stephanie Klick, Texas House of Representatives
Lois Kolkhorst, Texas House of Representatives
Matt Krause, Texas House of Representatives
Jodie Laubenberg, Texas House of Representatives
George Lavender, Texas House of Representatives
Jeff Leach, Texas House of Representatives
Tryon Lewis, Texas House of Representatives
Rick Miller, Texas House of Representatives
Geanie Morrison, Texas House of Representatives
Jim Murphy, Texas House of Representatives
Rob Orr, Texas House of Representatives
John Otto, Texas House of Representatives
Tan Parker, Texas House of Representatives
Charles Perry, Texas House of Representatives
Larry Phillips, Texas House of Representatives
Scott Sanford, Texas House of Representatives
Matt Schaefer, Texas House of Representatives
Ralph Sheffield, Texas House of Representatives
Ron Simmons, Texas House of Representatives
John Smithee, Texas House of Representatives
Drew Springer, Texas House of Representatives
Van Taylor, Texas House of Representatives
Ed Thompson, Texas House of Representatives
Steve Toth, Texas House of Representatives
Scott Turner, Texas House of Representatives
James White, Texas House of Representatives
Bill Zedler, Texas House of Representatives

If you’re a Republican voter and do not agree with this message from your party, then explain to us why you support such an extreme move by voting for Republicans. Thanks!

This is but another reason to vote for Wendy Davis.

H/T: My BFF @ComgenKDT with thanks.

D.B. Hirsch
D.B. Hirsch is a political activist, news junkie, and retired ad copy writer and spin doctor. He lives in Brooklyn, New York.

113 responses to 63 Texas Republicans Sign Brief Linking Marriage Equality To Legal Incest, Pedophilia

  1. mfr4 August 6th, 2014 at 8:02 pm


  2. Obewon August 6th, 2014 at 8:11 pm

    What The Frack are these constitutional illiterates drinking?

  3. Tommy6860 August 6th, 2014 at 8:15 pm

    So says the party of science O.o

  4. Jeff Allen August 6th, 2014 at 8:32 pm

    Liberals need to face the fact that criticisms of Abbott are really rooted in deep seated disablism led by Joe “Stand up, Chuck, let ’em see you. Oh, God love you. What am I talking about?” Biden.

    • arc99 August 6th, 2014 at 8:41 pm

      all I can do is quote John McEnroe on this one.

      ‘you cannot be serious”.

      • Jeff Allen August 7th, 2014 at 1:37 am

        as serious as those who insist that any issue a conservative has with ‘fill in the blank’ is rooted in racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. It’s ALL ridiculous conjecture and clouds any chance for honest debate.

        • arc99 August 7th, 2014 at 2:05 am

          even more ridiculous is pretending that none of the criticism of the President has anything to do with race.

          remind me again of which caucasian President was harassed about a birth certificate?

          • Jeff Allen August 7th, 2014 at 9:18 am

            See, there we go with the leaps again. I never said that there is no racial animus towards the President. There are backwards ignoramus racists out there, they just don’t make up the majority (or even a significant portion) of the conservative or Republican ranks. It is a lazy, disingenuous argument. Posting a few examples of it here and there is not indicative of prevailing thought.

          • jasperjava August 7th, 2014 at 10:08 am

            I think the percentage of right-wing Republicans who are unreconstructed racists is higher than you imagine; the sheer amount of irrational hate towards President Obama should make that obvious. He is even being sued by the leaders of your party for doing his job. Show me when such contempt was ever shown to a white President.

            But no matter the number, it’s clear that racists and homophobes find a welcoming home in the Republican Party, and even their most outrageous attitudes and comments are tolerated. Instead of complaining when liberals point out the bigotry in your ranks, why don’t you condemn the bigots themselves?

          • Jeff Allen August 7th, 2014 at 10:16 am

            “Show me when such contempt was ever shown to a white President.”
            You are kidding with that question, right?
            I call out bigotry of all kinds when I see it, online or in person. It has no value either in society nor in debate.

          • jasperjava August 8th, 2014 at 12:35 am

            No, I’m not kidding. When was a white President sued for doing his job, when Congress refuses to act?

            And you call out bigotry? When? Why are you still a conservative Republican then? Bigotry is the very foundation of conservative ideology. Everything else stems from that.

          • arc99 August 7th, 2014 at 11:13 am

            and I never said it was “prevailing thought”.

            however you did say “any conservative” and made no mention of the numerous examples of criticism of the President which are pure bigotry. if you expect me or any other supporter of the President to care about unfair accusations of bigotry against conservatives, then I would suggest that you stop with the bullsh*t about all criticism of Mr. Obama being characterized as racist. unless of course you can explain how the re-nig bumper sticker relates to the debate on unemployment benefits.

            when criticism of the President is branded as racist, it is because it is in fact racist. I happen to think those sentiments are representative of a significant portion of the political right.

            as my late grandmother used to teach us, do not blame racism for our own personal shortcomings. but when the black person is treated differently than all the white people, raise hell.

            so I repeat my question, which caucasian President was harassed about a birth certificate?

          • Jeff Allen August 7th, 2014 at 11:37 am

            The question is not based on logic because place of birth has no relativity to race. People of all colors are born in all places. Birthers, while out there in their pursuit of a dead issue, cannot be automatically grouped as racists.

          • craig7120 August 7th, 2014 at 1:52 pm

            Which caucasian president was harassed about their birth certificate? What is it about yourself that prevents you from answering the question, Mr Allen? Embarrassment? Obtuse? Ignorance? If you’re proud of the party that shelters open racism, why not embrace the label. If you’re embarrassed by such actions why not simply denounce the rhetoric?

            We’re not asking you to purge your racists from the gop, cause let’s face it, its their base, but having integrity should trump a party’s moral decay.

          • Jeff Allen August 7th, 2014 at 2:05 pm

            What is it about you that insists a persons birthplace and subsequent certification and their race are somehow dependent on one another? There is nothing more or less racist about a birth certificate inquiry than there is about college grades or military service inquiries.

          • craig7120 August 7th, 2014 at 2:19 pm

            So its obtuse, understand.
            Ted Nugent needs your support, the mongrel as he refers to our Potus is causing him great financial pain.
            Like I said, integrity should trump nastiness, in your case not so much.

            Be safe

          • Jeff Allen August 7th, 2014 at 2:25 pm

            please quote my nastiness

          • jasperjava August 8th, 2014 at 12:32 am

            Don’t you think being conservative is nasty enough? Tolerating racism and bigotry within your party? Having economic ideas that perpetuate poverty, diminish the middle class and increase the power and privilege of the ultra-wealthy? Cheerleading for war and torture?

            Conservatism, at its core, is pretty nasty stuff.

          • jasperjava August 8th, 2014 at 12:27 am

            If you don’t think there’s something racist about insisting that President Obama was born in Africa, and therefore “not one of us” and “not like us”, you’re wearing blinders the size of tents.

          • Jeff Allen August 8th, 2014 at 8:45 am

            Show me quotes of people in leadership (not just RW nutjobs) actually saying that the problem with him potentially being born in Africa would be that he is “not one of us” and “not like us”. I’ll save you the time, you won’t. The issue raised by birthers was Constitutional eligibility. What you project into the debate with the “not one of us” and “not like us”, is race baiting, plain and simple

          • jasperjava August 8th, 2014 at 9:00 am

            The birthers are just rational citizens impartially concerned with Constitutional eligibility?

            And yet they raise no objection to John McCain and Ted Cruz and George Romney, all of whom are known to have been born in foreign countries.

            Birthers are ignorant racists, pure and simple. It’s incredible that you would defend them by ascribing faux-noble motivations to them.

            This is precisely what I mean when I say that conservatives are either racist, or will at least protect and keep the racists within their ranks. You know full well that they represent an important segment of your electoral base, and you don’t want to alienate them.

          • Jeff Allen August 8th, 2014 at 9:16 am

            There you go again, filling in blanks that aren’t there. I never supported the birther movement either in it’s hey day, or in this thread. Are there racists in the birther movement? Most certainly, is the birther movement racist? Only in the minds of those who rely so heavily on the old and tired race card. Detractors of Obama saw an out with the Constitutional eligibility and took it to an extreme and nauseatingly long conclusion (for many it is still not ended, but you can’t control stupid). Instead of the constant drumbeat of racism, why can’t we just debate ideas, actions, words, and policies? Racism is real, it is ugly, and as long as there are human beings whose skin color differs, it is here to stay. But continually ginning it up when it festers quite successfully on it’s own is counter-productive.

          • raincheck August 16th, 2014 at 3:04 pm

            “The issue raised by birthers was Constitutional eligibility.”? ARE YOU KIDDING? Name another President that had this much trouble with people questioning their “Constitutional eligibility” There are STILL a lot of Republicans that believe he isn’t a US citizen. Are you blind to people, at Tea Party rallies wearing T-shirts that say things like “Put the White back in the White House? Kenyon Socialist… signs with Hitler mustaches?… You don’t have to say “not one of us” “not like us” in order to get that point across… I haven’t heard someone in leadership, say he wasn’t born a US citizen… But I have heard them say “It’s not my job to tell them how to think” because they want that “red meat” out there for their base to chew on…. I’ve read some of your posts…. you are an IDIOT… albeit a well spoken Idiot.,

          • Jeff Allen August 17th, 2014 at 8:32 am

            It’s actually lazy to pull together fringe examples and then apply them to the whole. The same can be done quite easily from Occupy Wall Street or any Big Labor rally, but none of them define the movement. And thank you for the last line, it’s the hallmark of sealing your point

          • raincheck August 17th, 2014 at 10:05 am

            The Tea Party was considered “fringe” once… now there isn’t much daylight between them and and mainstream Republicans… perhaps you can tell me the difference between the “fringe” of your party and the mainstream of your party…

          • Jeff Allen August 18th, 2014 at 7:33 am

            I am neither a Tea Party member nor a Republican, if you seek that answer, ask one of them.

          • raincheck August 18th, 2014 at 8:24 am

            You may not belong to the TP or the Republican party…. but you are a “member” 😉

          • Jeff Allen August 18th, 2014 at 8:30 am

            And exactly how do you quantify that statement? I am interested in any rubric used so that I can apply it to liberals as well. Any standard is only as good as it’s applicability to everyone.

          • raincheck August 18th, 2014 at 10:23 am

            ” but you are a “member” 😉 ………..It was simply a joke… were you being obtuse? Do you have a sense of humor?

            “member” definition….a part or organ of an animal body; a limb, as a leg, arm, or wing…. the PENIS

            If I may ask… which Party DO you identify with?


          • Jeff Allen August 18th, 2014 at 3:24 pm

            I’m supposed to have a sense of humor when you call me a penis?
            And yes, you may ask. Not the Tea Party, or Republican Party. And just to answer pre-emptively, I am registered to vote, and have voted in every election since I was 18, local, state, and federal (actually, I think I might have missed a couple of school board elections).

          • raincheck August 18th, 2014 at 3:28 pm

            I didn’t ask which Parties you DON’T identify with..

          • Jeff Allen August 18th, 2014 at 5:25 pm

            IDIOT first followed by penis, and then suddenly you want legitimate engagement?

          • raincheck August 18th, 2014 at 6:33 pm

            Would it help if I said I was sorry Jeff? I couldn’t help the “joke”… when the words “member of” were mentioned.. it just popped into my head and I thought it was funny. Come on.. you have to admit it was a little funny. It will give you something to laugh about the next time someone says they’re a “member” of something… hahaha?

          • Jeff Allen August 18th, 2014 at 8:32 pm

            There is never a need to apologize to me, just don’t expect legitimate debate when it begins with YOU ARE AN IDIOT. As far as the member thing, now that you have clearly explained it, the one thing that pops into my head is Austin Powers.

          • raincheck August 18th, 2014 at 9:38 pm

            Fair enough.

          • raincheck August 19th, 2014 at 8:13 pm

            Didn’t you post a document listing you as a registered Republican? It might have been a request form, switching you to another Party… Still wondering..

          • Jeff Allen August 20th, 2014 at 1:16 am

            I posted the document showing that I resigned from the Republican Party.

          • raincheck August 20th, 2014 at 6:48 am

            May I ask WHY you resigned from the Republican Party?..
            Jeff, I would like to try and guess which Party you belong to (notice I didn’t say “member” of) But first I’d like to buy a vowel… Is there an “I” ?

          • Jeff Allen August 20th, 2014 at 10:48 am

            I have not yet settled on a party at this time. I take the whole process very seriously and am researching platforms to find a suitable match. The Republicans have been a disappointment in many ways not the least of which has been foisting “most electable” candidates on us. Give us candidates that adhere to the core principles (no matter what party), instead of rolling the dice on whom you believe to be “winnable”. I have also had it with the two party stranglehold. The only discernible difference between establishment Republicans and establishment Democrats is their rhetoric. Once in Washington, it simply becomes the good ole boy club. Washington needs transformation and even hard core liberals will agree that Obama failed to deliver on that. He is Bush/Clinton/Reagan/Carter/Ford/Nixon 2.0. You can go back further, but you get the point.

          • raincheck August 21st, 2014 at 11:41 am

            I agree with much of what you said… It seems to me the whole “political thing” is being presented as some kind of “Reality TV” including the dramatic background music.. or some kind of sporting event, divided up into two teams, each provided with a list of talking points, and their own propagandist cable news network, where people can go on the “show” and say the craziest things, make false statements that are left unchallenged etc. If you don’t know the truth about these people, how can anyone make an intelligent decision about who to vote for? So it does take a fair amount of research to figure it out… people are drawn to drama, and they make decisions based on emotion, and too often the lies they are told. They’re often too lazy to look up someones voting record, and instead just listen to the rhetoric. NEVER in my life have I seen our Government so (insert colorful metaphor here) “fucked up” as it is now.The country is so divided,and kept that way so that REAL change never happens, or it is done slow it doesn’t do much good for people that were alive when the change began, they never see it fully implemented. UH OH!! WORD SALAD!!! ABORT! ABORT! I’ll leave it here for now…. “but you get the point” We have the mid-term elections coming up pretty soon… perhaps we’ll get some new “MEMBERS” of Congress that are just as dysfunctional as the ones who get replaced…hmm New “dysfunctional” “members” isn’t that kind of like… OH never mind… Peace!

          • raincheck August 18th, 2014 at 11:58 am

            “but you are a “member” 😉 … it was a joke. Are you being obtuse? Do you have a sense of humor?
            Definition for member:

            a part or organ of an animal body; a limb, as a leg, arm, wing or PENIS!!…
            May I ask which Party you identify with?

          • raincheck August 16th, 2014 at 3:12 pm

            “There are backwards ignoramus racists out there, they just don’t make
            up the majority (or even a significant portion) of the conservative or
            Republican ranks” Try tuning into Fox News…

          • Jeff Allen August 17th, 2014 at 8:33 am

            No thanks, I get the majority of my news right here.

        • arc99 August 7th, 2014 at 2:10 am

          nope. no racism at all. the President’s critics are all pure-hearted patriots. not a prejudiced bone in their bodies.

          Obama Lyin’ African/ African Lion T-shirts

        • arc99 August 7th, 2014 at 2:14 am

          ‘Don’t Re-Nig in 2012′: Maker of Racist Anti-Obama Sticker Shuts Down Site

    • Anomaly 100 August 6th, 2014 at 9:25 pm

      So that means you believe that same sex marraige leads to pedophila and incest then.

      Good to know, Jeff!

      • mea_mark August 6th, 2014 at 9:36 pm

        Can we ban him for being an idiot? Marriage equality leading to incest and pedophilia is so way out there it simply doesn’t compute. You have to be living in an alternate universe, to even begin to accept the idea as a postulate worthy of further thought.

        • Anomaly 100 August 6th, 2014 at 10:45 pm

          Keep him here. It’s your decision but remember, he makes the rest of us look like Mensa members.

          • Jeff Allen August 7th, 2014 at 1:44 am

            Again, our first discussion was what drew me to FreakOutNation. It was the diversity of thought, open discussion, and the fact that you (meaning you and not the site) remained above comments like that.

        • Jeff Allen August 7th, 2014 at 1:54 am

          Banned for being an idiot? At times it helps to see how the ‘other side’ perceives the accusations that are cast their way. Believing that criticism of the actions/words of a disabled person means that you hate disabled people requires the same warped logic that criticism of black, female, LGBT, etc. persons actions/words correlates to hatred of the group. It really is time to abandon such elementary age thinking and have adult conversations about issues and not cloud them with a persons distinctions. But hey, if banning me makes Liberaland a better place, then I guess you better protect the organizational image.

      • Jeff Allen August 7th, 2014 at 1:38 am

        I actually had come to expect better of you than those huge leaps in logic. My comment was a statement on every cry of racism, sexism, homophobia, or whatever intellectually lazy argument someone comes out with when a conservative disagrees with a lefty. It’s all absurd, weak, and anything but productive. It has been asserted on here on numerous occasions that ALL angst conservatives have towards Obama is rooted in racism, that anything shy of full embrace and celebration of the LGBT agenda is deep seated homophobia. That anytime a conservative says ANYTHING concerning a women’s issue it is immediately the “War on Women”. It was merely an alternative example of how absurd the logic is.

        • Anomaly 100 August 7th, 2014 at 6:33 am

          Read your comment again, then try to apply it to the topic (if you can).

          Then you tell me what it means since you feel I’m not capable.

          • Jeff Allen August 7th, 2014 at 9:38 am

            “Liberals need to face the fact that criticisms of Abbott are really rooted in deep seated disablism led by Joe “Stand up, Chuck, let ’em see you. Oh, God love you. What am I talking about?” Biden.” It is almost an exact quote often asserted with only Obama replaced with Abbott, and racism replaced with disablism. The Joe Biden part was just a gratuitous swipe at his lack of filters in unprepared statements, couldn’t help myself. In other words, satire, example of absurd logic to highlight an already existing standard of absurd logic. I never indicated an inability on your part, just surprised that you would immediately equate the original statement with my endorsement of same sex marriage leading to pedophilia and incest. I though my history spoke for itself that I generally don’t fit the extreme positions of the any side and presupposed a little leeway with the satire. I don’t believe I have ever resorted to besmirching your character or intellectual abilities, just kinda surprised that you would. Like I said below, you were what drew me to FreakOutNation/Liberaland to begin with. I have posted on other liberal sites, but the sheer inability to get past sophomoric name calling and pompous intellectual superiority from owners, moderators, and participants alike grew tiresome. But I’m a big boy, I can take it. I hope all is well.

          • Anomaly 100 August 7th, 2014 at 10:02 am

            I hope all is well with you, too.

            I still don’t see the correlation to the post, but that’s cool. When Abbott allowed Nugent to campaign with him, his credibility took a hit. As they say, “You are who you walk with.” Or something like that…

          • Jeff Allen August 7th, 2014 at 10:13 am

            I can’t disagree with the association thing. In politics, it is wise to choose your associations carefully.

          • Anomaly 100 August 7th, 2014 at 10:45 am

            IRL too:-)

          • jasperjava August 8th, 2014 at 12:23 am

            By associating with Republicans, you associate with some of the worst bigoted filth in the country.

          • Jeff Allen August 8th, 2014 at 8:39 am

            I’m unsure by what you gathered as association when I am merely pointing out hypocrisies, not defending their position. But you make a valid point about associations, hence the attached scan.

          • mea_mark August 7th, 2014 at 10:27 am

            I think Jeff just likes to hi-jack threads and take them off-topic into areas where he feels like he has something to say. If you are going to be a hi-jack troll, expect to get trolled.

          • Jeff Allen August 7th, 2014 at 11:32 am

            There is no hijacking. The article makes the assertion that conservatives equate same sex marriage with pedophilia and incest. The statement signed makes no assertion. The statement, if you read it without filters, states that the marriage equality ruling opens the door for a further expansion of the definition of marriage. It does not compare homosexuals with pedophiles or those who indulge in incest. Are there misguided bigots on the right who truly believe that? You bet there are, and they should be called out if they actually make that statement. However, this statement does not. When one believes that the institution of marriage (not love relationships) were meant to only include 1 man and 1 woman and the courts rule that marriage is now defined by the self defined love of two people without distinction, then there is a reasonable conclusion that that could open the ruling to further expanded interpretation. Whether you agree with their position or not, the ‘carry it to a further end’ logic has merit. It does not, on it’s merit, equate homosexuals with perverts. It simply seeks to place new parameters as they now stand. Bigamists have already used the ruling to support their pursuit of their definition of marriage equality, and logically, why would they not?
            To the second part of your post, if you feel that my presence is a detriment to the overall mission of Liberaland, ban me, but please don’t make false equivalents to “hi-jacking” that others engage in freely on here all the time or threaten banishment.

          • Jeff Allen August 7th, 2014 at 2:33 pm

            Or something like that…

          • Anomaly 100 August 7th, 2014 at 4:22 pm

            Can’t really see the image. Having huge eye problems lately. It’s a dude. I see Obama and what might be Mrs. Obama.

            Sorry, my eyesight just isn’t happening right now.

          • Jeff Allen August 7th, 2014 at 4:35 pm

            It’s POTUS and FLOTUS posing yesterday with president Jammeh of Gambia. Jammeh has openly called for the beheading of gays (now that’s homophobia!). His country received both humanitarian and military aid under Bush with the humanitarian $ increasing while military decreasing. That trend reversed under Obama and now military aid to Jammeh’s actual violently anti-homosexual Gambian leadership outweighs the humanitarian aid which is now zero. But I guess associating (Nugent is giving Abbott $) with jackass racists who like to hunt is far worse than associating (Obama is giving Jammeh $) with ‘folks’ who want to behead homosexuals.

          • Anomaly 100 August 7th, 2014 at 6:57 pm

            Do you have a link to that please?

          • Jeff Allen August 8th, 2014 at 8:26 am

            This guy is top tier filth when it comes to despots and not only was he hosted by the White House, he and other African leaders ( were treated to the largest, most expensive dinner 🙁
            This all happened with relatively little fanfare in the media…nothing to see here…move along.
            One tends to get tone deaf to “associations” when POTUS glad hands with this crew.
            Nothing in my response is a justification for the dirty hands that Bush shook or any other (R), it’s all repulsive. But I’m kind of tired of the guilt by association only being a one way street.





          • Anomaly 100 August 8th, 2014 at 8:46 am

            Well all presidents have and will have to play host to leaders they do not like personally.

          • Jeff Allen August 8th, 2014 at 8:58 am

            That’s how you brush that off? Obama having John Boehner over for a beer, or Paul Ryan for a game of squash is hosting leaders you don’t like personally. Throwing extravaganzas for despots, bigots, oppressors, slavery advocates, violent homophobes, and human rights abusers is of a much higher order. May possibly be the largest to date example of “If a Republican did it…” in it’s muted response.

          • Anomaly 100 August 8th, 2014 at 9:20 am

            I’m not brushing it off, Jeff. I’m actually writing a post while talking with you. The topic in *this post* has not been addressed by you. Instead, you’re basically saying, “Well Obama did this so anything else is acceptable.”

            You’re brushing the topic off, not me.

          • Jeff Allen August 8th, 2014 at 9:40 am

            Wait, what? I’m not brushing it off at all, too few news organizations and activists organizations that SHOULD have a huge problem with this are silent. ” The topic in *this post* has not been addressed by you” ???? Quite clearly actually. And then this “you’re basically saying, “Well Obama did this so anything else is acceptable” I can’t even fathom how you interpreted that from what I said.

          • Anomaly 100 August 8th, 2014 at 9:59 am

            But I’ve asked you about the topic several times. You have yet to address it. Instead you give me links about Obama.

            Look Jeff, I’m sure you’re an incredibly nice guy, but the fact is that Republicans take issue with the gay community. If only they would focus on jobs, just as they promised in 2010, when they took the House.

          • Jeff Allen August 11th, 2014 at 8:17 am

            Sorry for the delayed response, had an incredible social media free weekend. Perhaps I am missing something, what have I not addressed? I don’t shy away from any topic, I may have just missed what I missed.

          • Anomaly 100 August 11th, 2014 at 10:27 am

            “had an incredible social media free weekend”

            I’m jealous as hell. I need a weekend like that.

          • Jeff Allen August 11th, 2014 at 4:12 pm

            You really have to do it, I got a ton of work done and started a book I’ve been wanting to dive into. You are ultimately your own boss, make it happen, you’ll be glad you did.

          • Anomaly 100 August 11th, 2014 at 4:21 pm

            I never have time. At least not since I started blogging years ago. But, Carla is coming to visit in 10 days so that would be an opportunity to take a bit of time off, while the two of us raise hell in my new town:-)

          • craig7120 August 8th, 2014 at 9:41 am

            Just pretend its Putin and everything will be Ok, cause didn’t Russia outlaw being gay?

            Unless the man crush has worn off, say it ain’t so

            You’re tired of driving down a one way street lol. The narrow minded supporters of the gop have zero tolerance for gays, minorities, poor people, huddle masses of children at our border tells me talk is cheap but the gop actually walks the walk of intolerance.
            Obama is bad for having a this type of person over for dinner, feel better? That took guts writing that line on a liberal site, not really, we libs aren’t afraid of actually saying what we believe.

          • Jeff Allen August 8th, 2014 at 9:44 am

            “Obama is bad for having a this type of person over for dinner” The level of commitment to your principles is commendable.

          • craig7120 August 8th, 2014 at 11:04 am

            At least it was said in current time, saying, I don’t like W’s policies 8 years later is laughable.

            Don’t look now but there’s a 7 year old poor lil girl at the border that hasn’t been frightened enough, you’re up.

            Don’t like being lumped in with the crazies like the Nugent’s of the gop? Supporting hate isn’t a loophole of not being hateful, but I guess we have to wait 8 years for a denouncement.

            You’re a classic fence sitter of the gop, sit back and wait it out or take control of a party that’s intimidated by its extreme wing. You need a lil liberal in ya to make the right tough decisions.

          • Jeff Allen August 11th, 2014 at 8:21 am

            word salad

          • Jeff Allen August 7th, 2014 at 4:42 pm

            I had to look up IRL, I’m not hip with all the internet lingo, but IRL, I hope your eyesight issue is nothing serious.

          • Anomaly 100 August 7th, 2014 at 6:56 pm

            Heh. It’s just old age. I need to get my cataracts taken care of. I’m used to Internet acronyms only because I live on the Internet. (sad, isn’t it?;-)

    • craig7120 August 6th, 2014 at 9:41 pm


  5. Shades August 6th, 2014 at 8:48 pm

    Good luck with that.

  6. Eric Trommater August 6th, 2014 at 8:48 pm

    I’m working on a similar brief declaring how large corprate tax cuts also lead to incest and pedophilia and it makes just as much sense.

    • Larry Schmitt August 7th, 2014 at 5:01 am

      The difference is, if action is taken on your brief, it might actually do some good. The one in this story is just a huge waste of time.

  7. FieryLocks August 6th, 2014 at 9:22 pm

    GOPers are experts when it comes to pedophilia…

  8. arc99 August 6th, 2014 at 9:39 pm

    It is always useful to consider fact-based real world examples when examining gay marriage or any other issue.

    The Netherlands was the first country in the world to legalize gay marriage. It has been over a decade now and the results from the Dutch are indisputable.

    Legalizing gay marriage will lead to universal health care, federally mandated 16 weeks of maternity leave with full pay, and coffee shops where you can have a hit of hash with your espresso.

    So those of us who support gay marriage do not need a petition or legal brief containing nothing but far-fetched hypotheticals. We have an entire country of almost 17 million people proving that marriage equality is the right thing to do

    • John David Peer August 6th, 2014 at 9:44 pm

      …and an even bigger one of 35 million sitting on top of you…

      • John David Peer August 6th, 2014 at 9:45 pm

        Although, admittedly, it has not (yet) led to coffee houses with hash.

    • IncredulousMark August 6th, 2014 at 11:44 pm

      It was legalized in Canada in 2006 and the only societal impact was a slight uptick in average happiness.

  9. John David Peer August 6th, 2014 at 9:39 pm

    “”recognition of same-sex marriage ‘could lead to the recognition of bigamy, incest, pedophilia, and group marriage…”

    1) Bigamy (where each wife is oblivious to the other’s existence) is fundamentally fraudulent and violates one of the two key tenets of a marriage (i.e. a legal contract), which are consent, and comprehension. Bigamy violates the latter, because the women do not know about each other. It is rightly illegal.

    2) Incest is illegal because the genetic implications can be severe if two close relatives reproduce, and errors/potential mutations in their DNA cannot be filtered out by recombination. It is properly banned everywhere but in Westeros…lol.

    3) Pedophilia, or more accurately marrying a minor is not possible because a minor cannot give consent. This is also the proper rebuttle to right wing hardliners who say that gay marriage will lead to “man marrying a goat, or a tree!”. Some folks that have been here for more than just the past few months will fondly remember the long debates with good ole Kregg, who would repeatedly wheel out this tired old mantra. A tree, or a goat, or a child cannot give consent, and so therefore can never legally marry. Period. Rightly, marrying a child is illegal. Although only just really in the last century or two.

    4) Group marriage. I have absolutely no moral issue with group marriage, between consenting, non-sibling, adults. I DO, however have a mathematical objection. Too much plural marriage can and does lead to a gross gender imbalance. Historically, this has been easily solved with a handy war or three. However, because not that many folks would choose this option, preferring instead the North America tradition of “consecutive polygamy”, plural marriages should be legal for those that choose them.

    So none of these analogues work particularly well for the Texans. They were better off just using the “icky” angle, combined with a smattering of misunderstood passages from the OT.

    Which is to say, not at all…

    • Rusty Shackleford August 7th, 2014 at 4:22 am

      Not that I have a horse in the incest race, so to speak, but I really take issue with the justification you use for your second point, for a multitude of reasons:

      1. The risks of genetic disorders or birth defects are really only significant after multiple successive generations. Forbidding you from doing something based on what your offspring might do years later? It’s unprecedented.

      2. Even in successive generations, the risks are still lower than the risks associated with drinking or smoking during pregnancy, which is 100% legal, and I don’t think we want to go down the road of criminalizing that.

      3. Not every incestuous couple is even capable of procreating. This is a really fucking obvious hole in this premise that no one ever seems to acknowledge. Heteronormativity in action, folks.

      4. Does no one else see the dangerous precedent in letting the state take a vested interest in who is or isn’t allowed to procreate based on their genetic stock? Seems dangerously close to eugenics. Who here DOESN’T have a family history of some sort of potentially-heritable disease? Why are those risks acceptable but these are not?

      I have zero interest in partaking in incest myself, and I am not particularly invested in this issue, but I do take issue with paper-thin justifications like this one. If anyone can offer a more compelling argument for its continued criminalization, I’m all ears.

  10. Bunya August 6th, 2014 at 9:56 pm

    So if same sex marriage leads to bigamy, incest, pedophilia and group sex, what does opposite sex lead to? Perhaps adultery? Rape? Divorce? Porn addiction?

    • mea_mark August 7th, 2014 at 10:33 am

      Over population of the planet and the need to consume resources ever faster polluting the air, causing global warming and the eventual destruction of the environment necessary to support human life. Just a thought.

      • Bunya August 7th, 2014 at 10:45 am

        Hey! We’re having a thoughtful discussion about how Jesus thinks same sex marriage leads to beastiality, pedophilia and sex with inanimate objects, and you come along and ruin it by bringing science into the conversation. What a commie!

  11. uzza August 6th, 2014 at 10:24 pm

    None of this is to say that recognition of pedophilia or other morally
    reprehensible actions being recognized as valid is actually a logical
    next step
    that would follow recognition of same-sex marriages,”

    LOL. Is it safe to say you’ve jumped the shark, when you have to include language in YOUR OWN BILL to reassure people that you don’t really think what you’re saying is logical?

    • IncredulousMark August 6th, 2014 at 11:42 pm

      Is that an actual quote from the bill? Yeah, I suppose I could google it but I’m Canadian and we sorted this out long ago. While curious, I just can’t be arsed to google it myself as the US is now becoming such a backwards theocracy that I don’t really give a damn about it anymore.

  12. Foundryman August 6th, 2014 at 11:16 pm

    Ignorant religious fanatics holding public office have only one agenda, to force their will and faith based idiocy on the rest of us. Representative republic be damned. Jerry Falwell’s moral majority have come a long way in Texas. I’d like to know how many of the above 60 lose their re-elections next time.

    • tiredoftea August 6th, 2014 at 11:28 pm

      It’s Texas, not one of them.

      • mea_mark August 7th, 2014 at 10:36 am

        I sure hope you are wrong, very, very, very wrong.

        • tiredoftea August 7th, 2014 at 12:41 pm

          For your sake, I hope so too, but, I doubt it.

  13. labman57 August 6th, 2014 at 11:23 pm

    The intentional grouping of homosexuality and gay marriage with incest, prostitution, polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia, rape, … even murder … is simply further evidence that the Republican Party is still laden with sanctimonious, socially-regressive bigots who wish to impose their own religious mores onto the rest of society.

  14. tiredoftea August 6th, 2014 at 11:24 pm

    “Another ground cited by supporters of Texas’s marriage laws and subsequently dismissed by the district court is that recognition of same-sex marriage ‘could lead to the recognition of bigamy, incest, pedophilia, and group marriage,’” the brief states.” All that is true and many of those fringe, right wing Cadillac preachers who bought male prostitutes and drugs, Utah bigamists, Republican Congressman and Senators on the right have already been prosecuted for those crimes.

  15. RioBravoHombre August 7th, 2014 at 12:05 am

    Study after study, by sociologists, psychologists, criminologists and others has shown that US penitentiary occupants are overwhelmingly the product of conservative homes, and the recipients of beatings, euphemistically called,”spanking” by those who favor the practice. Study after study has demonstrated that the perpetrators of domestic abuse overwhelmingly self identify as conservative. The rates per 1,000 of child sexual abuse and rape are far higher in conservative red states and counties. These GOP lying assplugs can blather and babble about perceived immorality all they want, but they should take the log out of their eyes, and look within. THEY are the monsters they claim to fervently oppose.

    • Jeff Allen August 7th, 2014 at 1:58 am

      I’d be interested in seeing one of those studies because the assertions completely betray the simple demographic make-up of the United States and it’s prison population.

      • RioBravoHombre August 7th, 2014 at 2:17 am

        Is that a fancy way of saying….”yeah, but…BLACK PEOPLE?”

        • Jeff Allen August 7th, 2014 at 9:43 am

          No, it legitimately is non-indicative of actual US demographics. Demographics are what they are and you can’t ignore nor change them to suit a study. They are an objective factor, not a relative one. Nice try though.

          • raincheck August 17th, 2014 at 10:00 am

            Would the demographics in a prison have anything to do with the rate of incarceration of black folks being pulled over and arrested at a much higher rate than white folks?… even though they abuse drugs at about the same level? 60% of the prison population is in there because of mostly non-violent minor drug offenses…

          • Jeff Allen August 18th, 2014 at 7:35 am

            Show me one of these studies, simple request.

          • Carla Akins August 18th, 2014 at 8:31 am


            “The racial disparities in the rates of drug arrests culminate in dramatic racial disproportions among incarcerated drug offenders. At least two-thirds of drug arrests result in a criminal conviction.18 Many convicted drug offenders are sentenced to incarceration: an estimated 67 percent of convicted felony drug defendants are sentenced to jail or prison.19 The likelihood of incarceration increases if the defendant has a prior conviction.20 Since blacks are more likely to be arrested than whites on drug charges, they are more likely to acquire the convictions that ultimately lead to higher rates of incarceration. Although the data in this backgrounder indicate that blacks represent about one-third of drug arrests, they constitute 46 percent of persons convicted of drug felonies in state courts.21 Among black defendants convicted of drug offenses, 71 percent received sentences to incarceration in contrast to 63 percent of convicted white drug offenders.22 Human Rights Watch’s analysis of prison admission data for 2003 revealed that relative to population, blacks are 10.1 times more likely than whites to be sent to prison for drug offenses.23”

            Source: Fellner, Jamie, “Decades of Disparity: Drug Arrests and Race in the United States,” Human Rights Watch (New York, NY: March 2009), p. 16.

          • Jeff Allen August 18th, 2014 at 8:59 am

            That’s awesome AND nothing new, however, where in the study is the assertion that RioBravoHombre made “US penitentiary occupants are overwhelmingly the product of conservative homes”? That is what I originally challenged and no one has backed it up. The assertion completely betrays US general and incarceration demographics. In fact, the study you linked backs that up.

          • raincheck August 18th, 2014 at 12:39 pm

            Don’t you have google available to you?

          • Jeff Allen August 18th, 2014 at 3:42 pm

            Sure do, you?

  16. Srszee August 7th, 2014 at 10:58 pm

    Seriously? I am a conservative because I believe in a small federal gov’t and that there are many things best handled at state and local levels. I have a lot of gay friends who only want to have legal relationships like the rest of us and they are just as opposed to pedophiles and incest as anyone else. You legislators are an embarrassment to the people you are supposed to be representing–are you really that backwards?