Tom DeLay’s Betrayal of the Constitution and Liberty

Tom DeLay, the disgraced former U.S. congressman from Texas and Republican House Majority Leader, thinks states can defy a possible U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down bans on same-sex marriage. He tells the right-wing outlet Newsmax that “all hell is going to break loose” if the high court makes such a ruling this month. He goes on:

“A ruling by the Supreme Court is nothing but an opinion if the legislative branch and the executive branch do not enforce it. Not only that, if the states would just invoke the 10th Amendment and assert their sovereignty, they can defy a ruling by the Supreme Court. It’s in the Constitution. We can tell the court what cases they can hear.”

Southern politicians tried this approach after the Supreme Court struck down school segregation as unconstitutional in 1954. It’s also what opponents of interracial marriage called for when the high court struck down state anti-miscegenation laws in 1967.

DeLay also argued that opposing a court ruling striking down bans on same-sex marriage “is about religious liberty more than anything else” — meaning, essentially, the right to refuse to accept or recognize same-sex marriages for religious reasons.

“For all of time, not just Christians and Jews, but all religions have defined marriage as one man and one woman to come together as one and have children and raise those children. You cannot redefine it. It is set in stone. You can call it something else and create civil unions, but you cannot redefine marriage.”

DeLay’s arguments represent an arrogant betrayal of the American constitutional system and a cynical distortion of the principle of religious freedom. If the courts can’t protect the constitutional rights of individuals, then those rights are subject to the whims and biases of whatever political majority rules the day. And that’s especially a danger when demagogues like DeLay use religion as a weapon to discriminate and harm others.

7 thoughts on “Tom DeLay’s Betrayal of the Constitution and Liberty

  1. “For all of time, not just Christians and Jews, but all religions have defined marriage as one man and one woman to come together as one and have children and raise those children. You cannot redefine it. It is set in stone. You can call it something else and create civil unions, but you cannot redefine marriage.”

    Personally, I think that one spouse is more than enough, but there are other religions that are not monogamous. DeLay talks about freedom…but disparages same sex marriage.

    One of my sisters-in-law had a hysterectomy when she was 14 due to cancer. According to low life people like DeLay she should not have been able to marry because she could not bear children. Marriage is a hell of a lot more than just having kids.

    And what about other women and men who cannot produce children? As usual, DeLay is a moron.

    He is so wrong about his approach. Only those people who still are hung up on the myths in the opening part of Genesis are opposed to multiple martial partners.

    Islam permits men to have as many wives as they can afford. The kings of Israel practiced multiple wives and concubines.

    That is a major reason that so many kids are fleeing Churches and some take their parents with them.

  2. The last quote is rubbish on a record breaking level. Lots of religions accept(ed) polygamy (usually polygyny = 1 man, multiple women), the Bible has several examples of men in G#d’s favor having more than one wife (Abraham sired a son with his slave Hagar on demand of his wife Sara, Jacob married Lea and Rahel both David and Solomon had huge harems before they fell out of grace…). Even Christian theologians of authority, although preferring universal abstinence, found no fundamental fault with a man having more than one wife (pointing to the above mentioned Biblical cases). Even in very Catholic states the monarchs tended to have mistresses (in France it was at times the queen’s job to select the official one).
    So the claim falls flat even for Judaism and Christianity before Islam is taken into account (and then on to all the minor religions). Oh, and there is of course the Mormon Church.

  3. In 1966 I started to work for American Airlines in reservations. At that time it was an ideal place to work not only for me – it paid well – but for homosexuals as well. It took me a while to figure out but we had non-rev flight privileges and a gay or lesbian could appear to be straight as a stick in Dallas-Fort Worth but could take off on weekends to New York or San Francisco where their lifestyles were tolerated. Like the rest of the human race there were some that I didn’t care for and some that I liked a lot. One of the finest young men I knew was the first in our office to die of AIDS. I honestly believe that had homosexual marriage been allowed then that terrible disease would not have spread so quickly.
    Elimination of discrimination is not just about medical benefits. In where homosexual marriage is legal they will be able to:
    Sponsor their husband/wife for immigration benefits
    File income taxes jointly
    Have joint parenting rights, such as access to children’s school records
    Have next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions
    Have family visitation rights, such as a visit to a spouse in a hospital or prison
    Receive custodial rights to children, shared property, child support and alimony after divorce
    Qualify for domestic violence intervention
    Receive spousal funeral and bereavement leave
    Inherit property
    Receive spousal benefits when an officer is killed in the line of duty
    Receive Social Security payments
    Have immunity from testifying against spouse
    Apply for housing assistance if in a low-income family
    Apply for copyright renewal for works created by their deceased spouse
    Receive spousal recognition for policies governing burial at Arlington National Cemetery
    And the list goes on…..

  4. As much as I dislike Tom DeLay’s opinions, he would be quite an asset to Boehner as “The Hammer.” Boehner lacks both leadership ability and more importantly stroke. The Hammer had both and he could move heaven and earth. DeLay would ride the Tea Party hard and put them away wet.

    I recall DeLay in politics as all business, just politics. After he retired he apparently found a new vocation as a religious, self-rightious (oh, the irony!) nut. Sort of like Palin, he craves attention. Sorry little man. Could have been a contenda!

  5. His arguments don’t represent “an arrogant betrayal of the Constitution.” His arguments merely confirm what we already know-he’s an idiot. He’s a hypocritical, self-serving, reprobate who needs to be in the long line of wingers to have their mouths permanently sewn shut. Jeff Foxworthy, in one of his standup skits, said the only reason the rest of the country thinks Southerners are stupid is because they put the dumbest among us on TV. Enough said.

  6. Amazing but President Obama never pays much attention to the constitution but noone seems to care. Double standard at paly there.

    As far as DeLay I really don’t see how he can buck the ruling. I may not agree with it but I will abide by it.

    Quit persecuting Mormons because they marry many including 12 year olds. If we are going to practice tolerance then practice it without changing rules.

    1. No, Amazed, as usual you are misinformed and wrong. “never pays much attention?” What does that even mean? It’s just idiotic word salad.

      Please, in an adult conversation one would provide a concrete example. Do so, please, or do elsewhere.