Does Team Mitch Support Homosexual “Marriage?”

Friday, February 21st, 2014 and is filed under Blog, Elections, Family Values

Share with your friends

Yesterday, Matt Bevin posited a basic argument against redefining marriage – one that should be shared by any conservative concerned with the inane effort to change a fixed definition.  Bedrock legal definitions are necessary because they have far-reaching ramifications.  Once we change the basic definition of marriage to include same-sex relationships, what is the legal rationale for not including any other loving relationship?

For example, a son or daughter might want to collect the Social Security benefits of one parent in place of a spouse.  Why can’t they define their relationship as a marriage and be entitled to collect those benefits?

This was the gist of Bevin’s argument in his own words From The Janet Meffered Show:

“If it’s all right to have same-sex marriages, why not define a marriage—because at the end of the day a lot of this ends up being taxes and who can visit who in the hospital and there’s other repercussions and things that come with it—so a person may want to define themselves as being married to one of their children so that they can then in fact pass on certain things to that child financially and otherwise.

Where do you draw the line? And if in fact a person can arbitrarily draw it here why not could someone else draw it arbitrarily somewhere else? There needs to be rule of law. Marriage has for millennia been defined as between a man and a woman universally. And it’s something we should recognize.”

Pretty simple argument – one which the left has declined to answer for years.

Instead of debating Matt on the substance of the argument, the far left has chosen to willfully distort his words to focus on an absurdity.  The liberal Talking Points Memo cited an extremist group, Right Wing Watch, suggesting that Bevin was predicting gay marriage could lead to incest.  Obviously, anyone with half a brain could see that he was making a legal argument and not suggesting that the social relationship of a gay marriage will lead to incest, especially given the fact that, by definition, same-sex couples can’t procreate.

Yet, amazingly, Mitch McConnell’s Chief of Staff (who also happens to be a top gun at the NRSC) tweeted out the left-wing article and compared Bevin’s comments to those of Todd Akin about rape and pregnancy.

Is there something Team Mitch would like to share with us?  Do they think there is anything offensive about pointing out the folly of redefining marriage?  Are they that out-of-touch with the mainstream of the very party McConnell seeks to lead?

Well, maybe so.

Remember Mitch’s articulate response to Justice Kennedy’s egregious ruling on DOMA, which in part, led to a Kentucky federal district judge forcing gay marriage on his home state?

“Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell issued no statement at all.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) simply flashed a smile and ignored a reporter’s question about the court’s decision Wednesday. (Politico)

And speaking of the ruling in Kentucky, Judge Heyburn was a McConnell staffer whom he recommended for the judicial appointment.  During his confirmation hearing at the Senate Judiciary Committee, McConnell noted that Heyburn was a “progressive Republican” and cited the Louisville Courier Journal calling him “far from a right-wing ideologue.”

Did McConnell know something at the time about Heyburn’s “progressive” jurisprudence?

This is not the first time Heyburn shredded the Constitution in order to inject his progressive views on Kentucky.  In 1998, he overturned the state’s law banning partial-birth murder.

Matt Bevin is right to be outraged by this rogue judge appointed by McConnell.

Once again, Team Mitch is making it clear that they are just as fraudulent social conservatives as they are fiscal conservatives.