Hawaii Twice Divorced Governor Compares Gay Marriage to Incest

Seemingly trying to further destroy her state as a tourist destination, hypocite Linda Lindle - who applies Bible passages to gays but not herself - has now publicly stated that gay marriage is the same as incest. Or at least that's how she is trying to justify her veto of civil union legislation for same sex couples in Hawaii. The irony is that meanwhile, Hawaii allows first cousins to marry - something backward Virginia allows as well. Too bad Ms. Lindle doesn't even know the laws of her own state. It kills me that the world will purportedly end if gays marry but it's fine to marry that first cousin you grew up with and celebrated with at family gatherings. First cousins marrying? Sure sounds pretty much like incest to me. In fact, half of the states ban such marriages. Think Progress has coverage on this bitch, I mean bigot's latest blather. Here are highlights:
*
In her first radio appearance after her veto, Good As You noted that Lingle continued to pretend that the legislation would undermine traditional marriage. She also claimed that if people believe marriage equality for same-sex couples is a “civil rights issue,” they should also be concerned that close relatives can’t marry either:
*
LINGLE: For those people who want to makes this into a civil rights issue, and of course those in favor of the bill, they see it as a civil rights issue. And I understand them drawing that conclusion. But people on the other side would point out, well, we don’t allow other people to marry even — it’s not a civil right for them. First cousins couldn’t marry, or a brother and a sister and that sort of thing. So there are restrictions, not to put it in the exact same category. But the bottom line is, it really can’t be a civil right if we are restricting it in other cases, and it’s been found to be legal in those other cases, that the restrictions
*
Lingle’s argument is popular with conservatives. Recently, former Arkansas governor and current Fox News personality Mike Huckabee said that legalizing marriage equality would “be like saying, well, there are a lot of people who like to use drugs, so let’s go ahead and accommodate those who want who use drugs. There are some people who believe in incest, so we should accommodate them.

Cousin-Marrying States Versus Gay Marriage States

Click map to enlarge.

With all the Christianist blather about gay marriage leading to incestuous marriages, etc., Queerty has an interesting post that looks at the states that allow first cousins to marry as shown above. It would seem that Maggie Gallagher has bigger things to worry about than gay marriage. Virginia, which bans same sex marriages and domestic partnerships and discriminates against gays in general, would allow me to marry my first cousin as long as my cousin is not male. Pretty creepy in my view. Not surprisingly, seven of the states that allow first cousins to marry are in the Bible Belt.

A Response to Those Who Urge Patience with Obama

I published a long comment on one of yesterday's posts about Obama's betrayal of LGBT Americans in the Department of Justice brief in support of DOMA. The writer urges patience and argues that LGBT citizens have nowhere to go but to hang with Obama and the Congressional Democrats who take our money, accept our labor on their campaigns, and then ignore us or pat us on the head like children and tell us to wait for change. I'm sorry, but I do not buy that argument. If you want my support, then deliver on you promises. I was at the Obama rally in Virginia Beach last year with some other gay friends and Obama's words on gay rights literally brought tears to our eyes - yet he apparently meant none of it. As Jon Davidson, Legal Director of Lambda Legal points out in a message to one of my fellow bloggers, the Obama Justice Department could have defended DOMA with out the gratuitous insults to LGBT citizens. Here is Jon's message which he said could be shared:

*

Whether or not the administration felt a need to defend, there are many ways one can defend. The administration could have rested on the first two arguments raised in their papers (jurisdiction and standing) that these plaintiffs were not entitled to sue without arguing at this point that DOMA is constitutional. Doing that would not have waived those arguments.

*

What they need to be asked is why they gratuitously went out of their way to make the outrageous arguments they unnecessarily included such as that DOMA does not discriminate based on sexual orientation or that the right at issue is not marriage but an unestablished right to "same-sex marriage" or that DOMA is somehow justified in order to protect taxpayers who don't want their tax dollars used to support lesbian and gay couples (while it's apparently fine to make lesbians and gay men pay the same taxes but be denied the benefits provided heterosexual couples).

*

Their public statements about the filing try to sidestep these points. They absolutely knew they did not need to make these additional arguments, especially at this time and consciously decided to do so. I am seething mad.

*

The administration has a way to redeem itself -- by handling the DOMA challenge filed by Gay and Lesbian Advocates far differently. Unfortunately. The very same lawyer who filed this brief (Scott Simpson, who is a Bush holdover) has been assigned by the Department of Justice to handle that case for the government. The White House and the higher ups in the Department of Justice have the responsibility of ensuring that similar arguments are not repeated in that case.

*

I have to take the fall for any scew ups by my staff and the same applies to Obama who, through his Attorney General, ultimately controls what happens at DOJ on this type of case. People need to stop making excuses for Obama and demand that he be held accountable