The Right To Marry - Another View

[xrayzebra]

I thought about posting this in other "marriage" threads, but since I
know some on here will want to make some comments not associated
with those threads I decided on starting a new one.

This article shows how things can and have escalated for the sexuals
marriage proposals and what they have in mind at the end.

People scoffed and laughed at the thought of two women or men getting
married 10-15-20 years ago. Not so today. Some laugh at the thought
of two men and a woman marrying. Well read on and learn. And how
about someone marrying their dog, cat or horse. All in the name of
equal rights and fairness.


Blog | Talk Radio Online | Columnists | Your Opinion | The News | Photos | Funnies | Books & Movies | Issues | Action Center

When Will Bisexuals Drag sexuals out of Polygamy Closet?
sexuals continue to push for marriage equality but ‘resist’ polygamy.
By Janet M. LaRue
Friday, December 22, 2006

In 1972 the National Coalition of Gay Organizations demanded the “repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.” So why aren’t sexual activists leading the battle to legalize polygamy?

Maybe they’re smart enough to understand the visceral reaction most of us would feel if we knew their goal and playbook. Maybe the rest of us would get our backs up if we stopped believing it’s just about equal treatment of “two loving and committed same-sex couples.”

Maybe a whole lot of us need to care more about morality and the greater good of society and children in particular than we do about our self-centered obsessions about how “fair” and “loving” we’re perceived to be.

Consider just a few tidbits from major players:

At a [1999] conference at the University of London called “Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage: A Conference on National European and International Law,” one of the main themes of discussion was whether marriage should exist at all. The attendees laid out strategies to cir vent each nation’s democratic process via the judicial system to force governments to sanction and accept same-sex marriage. There was open talk about ultimately abolishing marriage so adults could be free to pursue any sexual relationship they want with no legal restrictions whatsoever. (Alliance Defense Fund, “The sexual Agenda: Excerpt 2”: http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/i....aspx?cid=3483).

It is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture. It is the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statutes, get education about sexuality and AIDS into public schools, and, in short, usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us. (Michelangelo Signorile, “I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do,” OUT magazine, May 1996, p. 30).

“Generations of radicals have imagined a world in which the norm-making rules of matrimony are suspended. ... Down the road, we might see groups of people sharing the custody of children. …” (Richard Goldstein, “The Radical Case for Gay Marriage,” Village Voice, Sept. 3-9, 2003, p. 34).

In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court dropped a cluster bomb in Lawrence v. Texas. For the first time in its history, a majority of the Court rejected morality as a legitimate justification for a state criminal law. The Court declared uncons utional a Texas law that prohibited sexual sodomy in the privacy of the home.

Same-sex “marriage” advocates condemned the “scare tactics” of those who sounded the alarm regarding the threat that Lawrence posed to state marriage laws, including polygamy. The Lawrence bomblets began detonating and continue.

Less than five months after Lawrence, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ordered the State Legislature to allow sexuals to marry, favorably citing Lawrence. The court reasoned:

“The history of cons utional law ‘is the story of the extension of cons utional rights and protections to people once ignored or excluded.’ … This statement is true in the area of civil marriage as in any other area of civil rights. … As a public ins ution and a right of fundamental importance, civil marriage is an evolving paradigm.” Goodridge v. Department of Public Health (Mass. 2003).

Polygamists are pushing the paradigm by arguing that if Heather can have two mommies, why not two mommies and a daddy? And come to think about it, aren’t two mommies and a daddy “better” than no mommy or no daddy?

A Utah husband and wife filed suit after being denied a marriage license for an additional wife. They argued that the Lawrence decision should be read to require Utah to permit polygamous marriage. The district court disagreed:

Giving the required deference to the Supreme Court’s own stated limitations of its Lawrence holding, this court cannot hold that Lawrence can be read to require the State of Utah to give formal recognition to a public relationship of a polygamous marriage. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertion, the laws in question here do not preclude their private sexual conduct. They do preclude the State of Utah from recognizing the marriage of Plaintiff G. Lee Cook to Plaintiff J. Branson as a valid marriage under the laws of the State of Utah. Bronson v. Swenson (D. Utah 2005).

The court, however, noted the tendency for laws to “evolve”: “Plaintiffs refer to the dissent of Justice Scalia in Lawrence, where he contends that the majority’s ruling will call into question state laws against bigamy, among other statutes that are based upon moral choices. … That is likely to be true.”

The case is now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The Goodridge majority took it upon themselves to redefine common law marriage yet, arbitrarily limited its new definition to two persons: “We construe civil marriage to mean the voluntary union of two persons as spouses to the exclusion of all others.”

The three dissenting justices in Goodridge argued that the Commonwealth’s marriage laws were gender neutral and did not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Justice Spina wrote:

The marriage statutes do not disqualify individuals on the basis of sexual orientation from entering into marriage. All individuals, with certain exceptions not relevant here, are free to marry. Whether an individual chooses not to marry because of sexual orientation or any other reason should be of no concern to the court.”

The dissenters reasoned that by extending marriage to same-sex couples, the state’s laws against polygamy and incestuous marriages would fall.

The majority disagreed:

Similarly, no one argues that the restrictions on incestuous or polygamous marriages are so dependent on the marriage restriction that they too should fall if the marriage restriction falls. Nothing in our opinion today should be construed as relaxing or abrogating the consanguinity or polygamy prohibitions of our marriage laws. … Rather, the statutory provisions concerning consanguinity or polygamous marriages shall be construed in a gender neutral manner. Id. at 969.

Where does that leave bisexuals? How long until there’s a bisexual ménage a trois before the Massachusetts courts asking why bisexuals are “second-class” citizens in the Commonwealth?

Since the Goodridge court decided that the Commonwealth “failed to identify any cons utionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples,” how likely is it that it will be able to articulate a cons utionally adequate reason to deny marriage to three people, especially when the court held that it may not treat some citizens as “second-class.”

How will the court rationalize that limiting marriage to two people can be applied in a “gender neutral manner” to bisexuals, when it refused to recognize that the prohibition against same-sex marriage applied in a gender neutral manner” to two men or two women regardless of “sexual orientation”? The court will be hard pressed to assert anything other than its own moral code, which it claimed it couldn’t’ do in Goodridge.

Justice Marshall, nonetheless, iced the slope for legalizing polygamy based on the best interests of children:

In this case, we are confronted with an entire, sizeable class of parents raising children who have absolutely no access to civil marriage and its protections because they are forbidden from procuring a marriage license. It cannot be rational under our laws, and indeed it is not permitted, to penalize children by depriving them of State benefits because the State disapproves of their parents’ sexual orientation.

Already, an estimated 30,000 to 80,000 families are living polygamously in the United States, including hundreds of Laotian Hmongs in Minnesota and thousands of fundamentalist Mormons in Arizona and Utah. (Cheryl Wetzstein, “The Marriage of Many: If sexuals can ‘wed,’ will polygamists be next,” Washington Times, Dec. 11, 2005, p. A01).

Given the number of children in the average polygamous household, there’s no doubt that many more children are “deprived” of state benefits because of anti-bigamy laws than are children in sexual households.

A May 2005 Gallup poll found that 92 percent of Americans oppose the practice, which is illegal in all 50 states. But if Americans can be convinced that polygamy, like same-sex marriage or civil unions is about “fairness,” opposition can be expected to erode, once sexual activists come out of the closet in support of the right of bisexuals’ to marry an individual of each sex.

Conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer asked: “If marriage is redefined to include two men in love, on what possible principled grounds can it be denied to three men in love?” (Wetzstein).

“It’s not a case people can sniff at,” said Richard G. Wilkins, a law professor at Brigham Young University. “If you can’t require monogamy, how in the world can you deny the claims of the polygamists, particularly when it’s buttressed by the claim of religion?” (“Utah Polygamy Ban Challenged,” CBSNews.com, Jan. 27, 2004: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in596268.shtml).

After Canada legalized same-sex marriage, its government launched a study to look at the ramifications of polygamy.

Every sexual organization claims to be fighting for the rights of bisexuals. For example, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), the Association for Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Issues in Counseling (AGLBIC), the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund.

Lambda’s “Mission Statement” states: “Lambda Legal is a national organization committed to achieving full recognition of the civil rights of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgender people and those with HIV thought impact litigation, educations and public policy work.”

As a guest on Laura Ingraham’s radio show a few years ago, I debated Evan Wolfson, former project director of Lambda Legal. Relying on Lambda’s expressed concern for the rights of bisexuals, I challenged Wolfson to admit that legalizing same-sex marriage would lead to legalizing polygamy. My questions, which Wolfson dismissed as a scare tactic, were: If polygamy isn’t legalized, how will a bisexual marry just one person without denying his or her “bisexual orientation”? Otherwise, in order to marry, won’t bisexuals have to make a gender choice in a spouse and then engage in adultery in order to fulfill who they are as bisexuals?

Wolfson, now director of Freedom to Marry, says in his book, Why Marriage Matters America, Equality, and Gay People’s Right to Marry: “Civil unions.... are unequal in the security, clarity, and status they provide, unequal in the legal protections that flow from them, unequal in fact as well as in name—and names or words, of course, matter.”

Wolfson is critical of the recent New Jersey Supreme Court ruling: “But I’m not satisfied because the high court opened the door to equality but didn’t finish the job [because it referred the decision to the legislature]. There’s only one way to provide equality and that is by equal treatment.”

How long will bisexuals accept less than “equal treatment” while sexuals continue to diss civil unions and push for the right to “marry” in other states? Who thinks bisexuals don’t want the same “legitimacy,” “acceptance” and “affirmation” for bisexual behavior that legalized polygamy will provide? How long will they wait for their sexual “allies” to help them achieve the equal right to “marry” the persons of their choice?

Judge Donald G. Collester Jr., of the New Jersey court of appeals voted to extend marriage to same-sex couples. He said his colleagues exaggerated the ‘specter of polygamy.’ The sexual plaintiffs ‘do not question the binary aspect of marriage; they embrace it,’ Judge Collester said. Moreover, he said, despite myriad briefs filed in the case, ‘no polygamists have applied” for marriage rights.” (Wetzstein).

It’s notable that in the polygamy cases filed since the Lawrence decision, the plaintiffs have been represented by or supported by amicus briefs by the ACLU or one of its state chapters, but not by a sexual rights organization.

Truth be told, sexual rights organizations aren’t pushing for the right of bisexuals to marry two people because it would hurt the cause of extending same-sex marriage to other states. Wolfson is adamant that sexuals should never settle for civil unions, which makes the so-called concern for full equality of bisexuals a very distant prospect.

sexual rights leaders and their allies insist that the “slippery slope” to polygamy argument is a rhetorical dodge, while no doubt giving their bisexual friends a wink-wink. According to Wetzstein, Evan Wolfson still thinks “It’s a “scare tactic.”

It makes you wonder how long bisexuals will be content riding in the back of the sexual marriage bus, and how long before another activist court pushes marriage down the slippery slope to ultimate destruction.

When society and its courts think “fairness” and “tolerance” trump morality, the laws of God and what’s best for children, what will stop polygamists from marrying? Why limit it to three, “loving and committed” people? Why not two adults and a consenting minor? Why not a dozen polyamorists?

[I]n former days the free-thinker was a man who had been brought up in ideas of religion, law, and morality, and only through conflict and struggle came to free-thought; but now there has sprung up a new type of born free-thinkers who grow up without even having heard of principles of morality or of religion, of the existence of authorities, who grow up directly in ideas of negation in everything, that is to say, savages. Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace.

Who doesn’t know that you have to hide the playbook if your goal is to negate marriage by taking a duped and desensitized society down the slope slide by slide?

Janet M. LaRue is chief counsel for Concerned Women for America and directs its Legal Studies Department.

Copyright © 2006 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

What exactly is the impact to polygamy? Yes the author alludes to the "total destruction of marriage" and "what's best for the children".... but I'm not sure I follow how marriage will be destroyed if a few Mormons in Utah have multiple spouses or if Bisexual couples have multiple spouses (I suppose that would make them trios), it doesn't look like that would make my grandchildren any less safe. I'm not even sure I understand why living in a home with three parents would uniquely harm a child (unless you're going to go with the traditional fundamentalist insinuation that all sexuals, bisexuals (and im assuming you're going to lump polygamists in there too) are pedophiles.

Has it ever struck you as odd Xray, seeing as you are just as old as I am, that conservatives do this marriage thing a lot? Do you remember when we were growing up and it was inter-racial marriage that was going to destroy the most important social ins ution, ruin society, and harm "the children"? If you really go back and think about it, you'll realize the same rhetoric fallwell was using to fight inter-racial marriage back in the day, is being utilized in regard to gay marriage now.

Also, I remember chuckling a little bit when I read over that section about how Lawrence struck morality out of the legislative process... who's morality? I tend to think this equality and fairness thing your author rolls her eyes at is pretty important, in fact...I kind of see them as moral issues.

[xrayzebra]

What exactly is the impact to polygamy? Yes the author alludes to the "total destruction of marriage" and "what's best for the children".... but I'm not sure I follow how marriage will be destroyed if a few Mormons in Utah have multiple spouses or if Bisexual couples have multiple spouses (I suppose that would make them trios), it doesn't look like that would make my grandchildren any less safe. I'm not even sure I understand why living in a home with three parents would uniquely harm a child (unless you're going to go with the traditional fundamentalist insinuation that all sexuals, bisexuals (and im assuming you're going to lump polygamists in there too) are pedophiles.

Has it ever struck you as odd Xray, seeing as you are just as old as I am, that conservatives do this marriage thing a lot? Do you remember when we were growing up and it was inter-racial marriage that was going to destroy the most important social ins ution, ruin society, and harm "the children"? If you really go back and think about it, you'll realize the same rhetoric fallwell was using to fight inter-racial marriage back in the day, is being utilized in regard to gay marriage now.

Also, I remember chuckling a little bit when I read over that section about how Lawrence struck morality out of the legislative process... who's morality? I tend to think this equality and fairness thing your author rolls her eyes at is pretty important, in fact...I kind of see them as moral issues.

Well, It never really bothered me too much about inter-racial marriage,
since I didn't hear the arguments one way or the other when I was
growing up. I was brought up in a small Texas town that had it's colored
section and white section, and only one Mexican family, who children I
went to school with. Most of the folks in our town white black or brown
were friends and family people.

Since you and I are about the same age, so you say, I guess you too
was like many our age, wondered why the blacks were treated as they
were. I and most my age thought they should be treated as equals in
all respects. But I am getting off the beaten path.

Using your argument, then if I wanted to marry my dog, and wasn't a
pedophile, I would be no threat to anyone, well maybe my dog or myself,
and it would be alright for us to be married. And if later on, I found
a nice teenage boy that wanted to join us in marriage, since he consents
to the marriage with us, me and the dog, it would be alright. Because
he consented, knew the arrangement and he and I and the dog have our
rights and are no threat to anyone, it should be okay. And even if I was
a pedophile, and their is no moral reason to prevent me from marrying a
teenager what is wrong with it. Don't say harm to the teenager, because
there is no morality anymore. So harm has no real meaning.

Am I understanding you correctly?

[RobinsontoDuncan]

Um...no.

I don't think there is any link between supporting gay marriage and advocating pedophilia, (even though I accurately predicted you would bring up the subject) nor have I sponsored bestiality (Needless to say, I'm not surprised you ventured there).

I asked you how:

1) marriage would be destroyed if we allowed gays to be married (strait couples will bulk at marrying now that George and Harry can too?)

2) if, through humoring the claim that gay marriage will destroy marriage, we agree marriage will be destroyed; how would society in turn be destroyed?

3) How does having gay parents negatively effect "the children" ?(emphasis added to mock the self righteous tone used so often by those pushy evangelical types)

And you know what Xray, I have to say I'm honestly offended that you compare gays being married with allowing open pedophilia and bestiality in society. How the do those two things relate?

[xrayzebra]

Um...no.

I don't think there is any link between supporting gay marriage and advocating pedophilia, (even though I accurately predicted you would bring up the subject) nor have I sponsored bestiality (Needless to say, I'm not surprised you ventured there).

I asked you how:

1) marriage would be destroyed if we allowed gays to be married (strait couples will bulk at marrying now that George and Harry can too?)

2) if, through humoring the claim that gay marriage will destroy marriage, we agree marriage will be destroyed; how would society in turn be destroyed?

3) How does having gay parents negatively effect "the children" ?(emphasis added to mock the self righteous tone used so often by those pushy evangelical types)

And you know what Xray, I have to say I'm honestly offended that you compare gays being married with allowing open pedophilia and bestiality in society. How the do those two things relate?

Did you read the article? Gay marriage is only the first increment. That
is why the other two subjects were brought up.

I really don't care if I offend. But why should it offend you. Are you a
sexual? Not that it really matters one way or the other to me.
That really is your choice. But any sexuals sex life should be private
as is mine, as a heterosexual. It should not be thrust upon society
by being classified as a "right". In the first place, where do rights stop?
Do you know? Do I have the right to do as I please because it is
a "free society". Well no, why? Because there must be rules to live
by, laws. Otherwise, you have no society.

[ChumpDumper]

I love the leap of logic required here.

Bisexuals are compelled to be involved with one person of each sex at all times?

If that logic is to be followed, polygamy will become accepted simply because heterosexuals have affairs while they are married. There's a lot more of them than bisexuals.

[clambake]

phobe. Uses everything that comes to his imagination to attack gay people.

You left out "then somebody's going to marry a car wash".

[xrayzebra]

Hetrophobes never, never have a bias. Very strange, how the two last post
demonstrate that very thing. And show how they support any and all things
the sexuals put out there. Give me a break.

[ChumpDumper]

If the sexuals make polygamy or bestiality or marriage to inanimate objects their agenda, let me be the first to say I will vote against those.

Since they haven't done that in the current century, perhaps it would serve us all to stay on point.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

Did you read the article? Gay marriage is only the first increment. That
is why the other two subjects were brought up.

Oh yes, I read the article... that's why both I and Chumpdumper have questioned the enormous slippery slope and leap in logic associated with the polygamy aspect. The two are not one and the same, and the fact that some sexuals want polygamy doesn't mean the majority of those advocating gay marriage do, and furthermore the author seems to forget that there are just as many (likely more) strait people that would like polygamy to be legal.

That being said I still fail to see how allowing polygamy (if we are to accept this rather weak premise) is going to cause major societal harm. Care to clarify?

It should not be thrust upon society

Society has more of a right to thrust its values on the individual right? I don't buy this argument, gays being married doesn't mean phobes are going to be required to like gays, nor does it mean that gays are somehow going to morph into a race of 70 foot tall blood sucking worms that will destroy all human life on earth.

by being classified as a "right". In the first place, where do rights stop?
Do you know? Do I have the right to do as I please because it is
a "free society". Well no, why? Because there must be rules to live
by, laws. Otherwise, you have no society.

Im assuming you at one time thought that you had the right to marry. As far as doing as one pleases in a free society, being married is hardly the same as smoking meth or murder...so sure I'll agree that there are rules that society has to live by, but that doesn't mean not allowing gays to marry should be one of those rules.

[turambar85]

I don't buy this argument, gays being married doesn't mean phobes are going to be required to like gays, nor does it mean that gays are somehow going to morph into a race of 70 foot tall blood sucking worms that will destroy all human life on earth.

Wow...and to think that I had been tricked into believing that the entire time. I had spent all of my Christmas money on repellant for gays that will suck the blood out of 70 foot worms....or did I get that backward, oh well.


Anyway. Get a damned grip X-ray. There is no slippery slope, and even if that were a possibility, you cannot deny one legitimate right because you think that it might somehow morph into something that you don't. That is the most ignorant excuse I have ever heard.

There will be no more gays than exist today, so your "gay problem" won't increase.

There is nothing wrong with polygamy, at least if done voluntarily, and if polyandry is also legal and accepted, and I beg you to try to convice any-1 otherwise.

There is no correlation between 2 women marrying, and a woman marrying a toaster oven. Good lord. That is like saying that if we allow a man to marry a woman, then a man can marry a 3 month old girl, or a man can marry a 97 year old senile, re ed, crippled, autistic woman from the local nursing home. It is one bloody issue, try to focus on what is at hand.

There is no connection between sexuals and pedophilia. Women teachers have sex with children. Male teachers have sex with female students. Straight male used-car salesmen have sex with female adolescents. Anybody can molest a child, rape a child, or otherwise have their way with a child, their sexual orientation does not make them perverse or sexually deviant and aggessive.

Stop complaining about sexual sex being "thrust" on you. If you weren't allowed to marry your wife because she was Native American and you were Irish American, you can damned sure bet that you would pitch a fit. Now, if millions of Native Americans wanted to, and couldn't, marry Irish Americans, our country would be in the process of being torn asunder. They only push what they are not allowed to have. Do you really think that they will be marching in the streets for marraige rights once they have been obtained? Will anybody rally together for a gay rights march if there is nothing left to gain? You are conflating two issues. You have a problem with loud, obnoxious sexuals bothering you, not the average sexual who wants to quietly marry his life partner. Do no punish them because you can't distinguish between the two.

And really...are you seriously complaining that there is a heterophobic bias? 99% of the global population is being subjugated and tormented by the terrible remaining percentage point? It is not heterophobic to support gay marraige. The world is not black and white, love us or hate us. I am straight, I push for gay marraige as much as anybody. I very much enjoy heterosexual sex. And you complained that people support everything they ( sexuals) are doing....that is because it is a message board in which we are arguing 2 sides...to marry or not to marry...it is a simple issue...and everybody who agrees with it will continue to do so....they are not simply pilling the issues on poor old X.

Finally, what else will this slope lead to? Do you see the sexual population growing to epic proportions? Do you think that more people will lust for man-love just because they can get married? NO! As I have said before, marraige is a sexual deterrent, and has turned many straight people gay....maybe the opposite will occur! Also, even if your worst-case scenario occurs...then the American population will stop increasing so dramatically of its own accord, without governmental intervention telling you that you can't make as many little brats as you want. It seems to me to be a win-win situation for the bigots...

[Spurminator]

I said the same thing back when they wanted to count black votes the same as whites. What happens when they want to be counted twice? Or three times?

[George Gervin's Afro]

I support the right for TWO CONSENTING adults to enter into marriage. Please save the predictable and totally irrelevant "well if I want to marry my Dog" argument..2 CONSENTING ADULTS

[DarkReign]

2 consenting human adults.

Beyond that, no thanks.

[George Gervin's Afro]

2 consenting human adults.

Beyond that, no thanks.

I STAND CORRECTED. 2 HUMAN ADULTS

[DarkReign]

lol, you know X wouldve jumped on your without the proper species identified.

[George Gervin's Afro]

lol, you know X wouldve jumped on your without the proper species identified.

Well you have to admit about ray he is out there right now defending the war on christmas. he is a culture warrior who is determined to keep businesses from using the term ' happy holidays' instead of 'merry christmas'

[George Gervin's Afro]

what do you know, pothead?

I know that anyone who thinks there is a war on christmas ain't so bright...

[xrayzebra]

I know that anyone who thinks there is a war on christmas ain't so bright...

Hope you had a Merry CHRISTmas and a very
BRIGHT New Year.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Hope you had a Merry CHRISTmas and a very
BRIGHT New Year.

All kidding aside Ray I hope you and your family had a wonderful Christmas holiday..

[DarkReign]

News of the Weird

Federal prosecutors have insisted so far that any ill-gotten money that former Enron executives had squirreled away in their spouses' names still can be fully recovered by the government, except for one executive. Michael Kopper, once a director of Enron's global finance unit, pleaded guilty in 2002 to illegally obtaining $16.5 million, but he is openly gay. And since his home state of Texas does not recognize his union with his longtime partner, prosecutors cannot treat the partner as a "spouse" and have lumped him with "third party" transferees, whose assets are much more difficult to obtain (according to a November report in Washington Blade). [Washington Blade, 11-3-06]

Greatest site ever.

[boutons_]

Wow, that's beautiful. The intolerant TX red-staters "hoisted on their own pe ".

This is like pro-lifers voting for dubya who then wastes the lives of 100K people in Iraq.