GA Republican Party Chairwoman Sue Everhart Says Legalizing Same Sex Marriage Could Lead to Fraud

The Republican Party is still deaf when it comes to what the public wants. They haven’t noticed that gay marriage is more widely accepted than before. Here’s what Georgia Republican Party Chairwoman Sue Everhart had to say about same sex marriage:

“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.”

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.”

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’re creating with this child that it’s a lifestyle, don’t go out and marry someone else of a different sex because this is natural,” Everhart said. “But if I had a next door neighbor who was in a gay relationship, I could be just as friendly to them as I could be to you and your wife or anybody else. I’m not saying that we ostracize them or anything like that. I’m just saying I’m against marriage because once you get the gay marriage you get everything else.”

Um, so would Sue Everhart had made the same argument about heterosexuals who marry? Couldn’t they be guilty of the same fraud? The ignorance of the Republican Party defies logic. This is the same type of dangerous rhetoric over women’s rights that led to Todd Akin losing his Senate bid against Claire McCaskill — legitimate rape. Same thing for Richard Mourdock — pregnancy from rape is a gift from God. Please, keep talking. This will only keep a Democrat in the White House for the foreseeable future.

This was cross-posted from The Hinterland Gazette.

Auf Stumbleupon zeigen
Auf tumblr zeigen

Author: JANET SHAN

  • roro80

    Hmmm…I seem to recall this fraud argument coming up at another point in time, quite recently, here on TMV.

    In any case, statements like this: “If it was natural, they would have the equipment to have a sexual relationship” are so stupid that it makes any possible legitimate concern about fraud that she might bring up obvious bigotry. I mean, the gay people I know seem to have very little trouble with their, um, equipment.

    Of course there’s a certain amount of fraud in marriage. Of course it should be combatted in the same way it is with hetero couples. I feel like a few people have watched Chuck and Larry a few too many times…that was not a documentary.

  • Willwright

    Well sounds about right for a lot of people who live in Geogria.. I live there myself. There is a strong talk show radio culture and a high number of people who watch Fox News to get their information. I consider myself a moderate which makes me little better than a communist with some of my neighbors. I vote in republican primaries to try to get the least obnoxious candidate nominated. By local standards Sue is almost sounds moderate. Politics are local and given the environment Sue’s comments would not make any waves with a majority of the electorate today sorry to say.

  • zephyr

    The ignorance of the Republican Party defies logic.

    There is also willful ignorance and ignorant proselytizing, but the comments by Everhart are just plain stupid. This doesn’t mean they won’t have their admirers.

  • brcarthey

    Yeah, it’s not like gays and lesbians haven’t ever “straight married” for certain benefits in our society. So, this would make straight people getting “gay married” little more than unoriginal copy cats.

  • petew

    Sometimes I wonder if these people are genuinely concerned about the objections they dig up, or if it is really just an attempt to throw a plate of objections, like spaghetti at a wall, and see if any of them stick i.e. believable enough to shape public opinion in a conservative way.

    Sure, just about anything is possible, including the claim that pigs can fly (a sarcastic exaggeration of mine)but what DOMA clearly represents is using sexual orientation to refuse certain citizens equal rights under the law. It doesn’t matter if you, I, or anyone else doesn’t like the thought of same sex marriages (some people are unhappy that a black man is in the whitehouse) The point is, does preventing same sex marriages violate the law or not! Since there is no viable argument for claiming that gay marriages harm or disadvantages anyone else (our children,those with mental illnesses,those with moral values different from our own, or even those struggling with Cancer for that matter) and, since we are not governed by any one set of religious beliefs, the answer is a resounding, NO! IT DOES NOT!

    The only way my gay neighbors getting married may hurt me, is in that, the idea of it might goes against my own version of morality, and this bias is reinforced by thousands of year of ignorance and prejudice against an entire group of people who have been hated primarily, only because they are different. However,we don’t make laws to conform only with anyone’s, or any group’s opinions. I think many ideas held fast by the GOP are downright crazy, but that doesn’t mean I have the power to deny them from running for office or continuing to make up fantastic lies about the President—wish I did, but I don’t!

    Instead of warning us about slippery moral slopes, the religious right should be warning itself about enforcing unreasoning prejudice and biased personal opinions, and then ignoring the disaster that might be infused into our societies’ ethical make-up by these narrow minded and judgmental, attitudes!

  • DORIAN DE WIND, Military Affairs Columnist

    Good, sensible comments, Petew. Thank you.

  • dduck

    I thought liberals were more more tolerant of other viewpoints. Seems like what the majority of age 18-40 think trumps the “old fashioned” concepts to the extent that they can be called crazy and stupid while broad-brushing a significant portion of people associated with the Rep party. Marriage and other types of frauds that take advantage of public policies has been around for a long time and are baked into the current system along with their increasing costs. That doesn’t mean we should ignore potential new avenues for fraud and its ADDITIONAL costs.
    A judicial decision like the Citizens United cost us a slice of our liberties by allowing more money to corrupt our voting process.
    I say all this with an idealist’s viewpoint that any two (for now) people should have equal rights to share child rearing and caring for each other with federal benefits, but I can’t help but worry about the potential costs if laws like the estate tax are not eliminated or tightened. SCOTUS is not locked in a box and they do, or should, consider unintended consequences, as should legislators.

    Please, by all means disagree with my views, but I ask in advance that people observe the commenting rules on this subject.

  • slamfu

    We don’t factor in financial costs when thinking of civil liberties. Those are universal building blocks of our nation. I’m sure the South had a big financial argument to make about how much it was going to cost them when black people were freed, but it doesn’t actually change the argument from the perspective of right vs wrong. Fraud should be dealt with by those in charge of dealing with fraud. The right to marry isn’t just a service provided like food stamps or unemployment, its a legal issue with an entire branch of legal code dedicated to it. Are there going to be some people that try to use it to work the system? Of course, there always are. But it will be negligible in light of the fact we won’t be discriminating against a group of our fellow Americans.

  • dduck

    I tend to agree.

  • rudi

    Since gays and lesbians aren’t worthy of equal rights in the traditional South, why not count them as 3/5 of a person and give them sepearte but unequal facilities…

  • http://cma-steadystate.blogspot.com steadystate

    If I remember hearing correctly, LGBT (and whatever other letters I forgot) represent about 10% of the population. So let’s safely assume 15% of 300M. That’s about 45M people. How many marriages are fradulent? 10%, 5%, or 1%? Assuming about half of the total population is of marriage age (18+, i.e. 150M), at worst, current fradulent marriages would be 7.5M [assuming 75M marriages and 10% fraud incidence]. Even assuming ALL LGBT-identified people want to and could marry (i.e. 22.5M marriages), and a similar assumed incidence of fraud (10%), it would represent a 2.25M increase in fradulent marriages, or a 30% increase. Is that a lot? I guess it depends on how much it costs the taxpayer… I personally think it would be a small price to pay for a civil right to be upheld for the LGBT crowd and frankly the cost angle, as was brought up before, kind of seems like reaching for straws to justify why something you find “icky” shouldn’t happen.

  • petew

    dduck,

    I mean no disrespect for the issues you raise about possible fraud, but I do think that many conservatives are creating issues that take the focus away from more basic and obvious concerns, like the discriminatory nature of DOMA. Perhaps you are more genuinely concerned with this issue than many conservatives might be, but I have got to go along with slamfu’s observation that if we had worried about what freeing the slaves might have cost the southern agriculture industry, we might never have done the right thing by abolishing slavery and passing the 13th Amendment.

    I just saw LINCOLN, today, and I was much impressed by Danial Day lewis’s portrayal of Lincoln and the forces he dealt with. He believed that affirming basic human dignity was even worth beginning a war that took 600,000 American lives–tearing our social fabric asunder.

    I also embrace the ideal attitude that, the existence of Democracy as an instrument which involves all of the people, is worth enduring extreme political and social hardships in order to just keep the dream alive. At least if we continue to struggle, we won’t drift backwards into complacency and lack the necessary political friction, affirming our core values.

    I hope I don’t sound like someone singing the Star Spangled Banner with crocodile tears streaming down his face. And, I hope I don’t sound like some Corny General Patton speech urging us all to scale the walls of the enemy and attack the “dark side.” Corny patriotism has alway seemed ridiculous to me. But although we may not live in the greatest country in the world. The attempt to spread democracy by sincerely providing a working example of what it is, is very much worth the effort. You have a legitimate concern, I just don’t think it is the most urgent one for the courts or us to consider.

  • zusa1

    steadystate, I think you are looking at the wrong group of people when trying to calculate the increased incidence of fraud. It’s fraud among heterosexuals posing as gay that I think we would see the most. I think there would need to be a certain level of love and trust between two people in order to marry, even fraudulently. I see best friends being likely candidates.

  • dduck

    SS, petew and Z, I agree with you all and maybe I am too pessimistic, but I’ve seen exponential costs in other federally financed programs that the states are very happy to let happen (I’ve mentioned SS disability, ad nauseum) including food stamps. There will be many marriages “arranged” by disreputable (redundant?) lawyers between same species partners merely to cheat the feds and states, in this case out of the estate tax. (In 2010, some deaths were delayed as long as possible to take advantage of the then “unlimited” exemption.)
    Well, I have droned on too long, I hope for the best. Thank you all.