“Lord, I’m going to get in trouble over this, but it is not natural for two women or two men to be married,” Everhart said. “If it was natural, they would have the equipment to have a sexual relationship.”
Umm …. Whew. Okay, you know? Let’s just let that one slide. Maybe someone in Georgia can send Sue Everhart a video or something so she can figure it out.
No, here’s the part that’s gotten all of the headlines today:
Everhart said while she respects all people, if same sex marriage is legalized across the country, there will be fraud.
“You may be as straight as an arrow, and you may have a friend that is as straight as an arrow,” Everhart said. “Say you had a great job with the government where you had this wonderful health plan. I mean, what would prohibit you from saying that you’re gay, and y’all get married and still live as separate, but you get all the benefits? I just see so much abuse in this it’s unreal. I believe a husband and a wife should be a man and a woman, the benefits should be for a man and a woman. There is no way that this is about equality. To me, it’s all about a free ride.”
LOL. Yes, it’s always, always all about the free ride with Republicans, isn’t it? Hilarious.
I just have one question: say you’re a straight person wanting a “free ride” — maybe it’s getting on someone’s health insurance. Why would a straight person marry someone of the same sex to get that free ride? Why wouldn’t they just marry someone of the opposite sex? I mean, I’m sure that’s happened. We’ve all heard of green card marriages and whatnot. It’s not like straight people didn’t invent the marriage of convenience a thousand years ago.
So, that made no sense to me. Also, this:
Everhart said if she had a young child, she wouldn’t want them to have gay parents who would influence that child’s sexual orientation.
You know, there’s this amazing fun fact that Sue Everhart needs to consider: the vast majority of gay people had straight parents! I know, totally weird, huh?
I think this Republican lady just doesn’t like gays and lesbians. Who agrees with me? When your arguments are that half-baked and flimsy, you’ve gotta admit that the problem isn’t the “free ride” or “the children” or “the sex.” The problem, Sue Everhart, is you.
By the way, if you read the comments on that Marietta Daily Journal story you’ll be treated to cavalcade of twisted logic (and also some good common sense). I liked poster Just A Thought, who had this to offer:
If the argument being used in the court is gays have an inherant civil right to marry, doesn’t that argument then apply to the unborn having an inherant civil right to life? There is a much bigger argument here than gay marriage being right or wrong.
Huh? Not seeing what same-sex marriage has to do with the anti-abortion issue at all. Maybe someone can clue me in.