If you accept that there are other reasons to oppose said legislation which have nothing to do with liking or disliking the group in question, you'll see that your assumption is unfounded, and his own personal life is irrelevant in that context.
If we were talking about bills that included massive legislature changes, you could POSSIBLY have a point. But are we REALLY supposed to believe that EVERY SINGLE one of those votes was done for reasons that considered the "***" issue to be a positive, rather than a negative, that just wasn't good enough to outweigh the negatives?
No, we shouldn't. Because that's stupid. No one in their right mind would try and put through a *** marriage prohibition along with OTHER traits that Republicans would dislike. There would be no reason to put the bill out there in the first place--you just eliminate the entire other party, instead of just some (and hopefully, not enough to fail the bill).
Logic tells us that this guy had a very specific grudge against homosexuals. We know this because of the extremely steady rate at which he opposes these bills, along a very wide range of topics--everything from Prop8 to voting to make a certain date a specific holiday.
Add in the fact that he's divorced and was just arrested after leaving a *** bar, and my gaydar is screaming that he's a closet case. The guy was there for a cheap **** with the first guy that would have him. He's, at the very best, bi. And I'd be surprised if it turned out that he had any sexual feelings for women. But, his sexuality isn't what is in question here.
I know you don't. Despite the fact that I've explained this dozens of times in a whole slew of various *** marriage threads (among others in which I espouse the same "government shouldn't pick favorites" idea). I hold out hope that one day you might indeed "get it".
Your arguments are consistently stupid. So bad, that most political advocates against *** marriage don't even use them. Because the math tells us the exact opposite. You like to pretend that *** marriage would cost the state, when both predictive analyses AND economic studies done in areas where it has been approved prove the opposite. The economic revenue in Washington D.C. as a result of the recent approval is predicted to be $5 million and is expected to create 700 jobs in the next 3 years.
In ONE city. Not one country. Not one state. One city. A city that isn't particularly known for its *** scene nonetheless.
And your "showing special consideration" idea is not only ********* but there's plenty basis for the opposite. In terms of anti-discriminatory laws, they are in place for most minorities (as well as at least one majority--women). If we consider marriage, it is not at all a request for special consideration but rather equal consideration, so your argument continues not to apply.
Now, if the gays were asking for tax breaks just for checking the box that says they're a banana crammer, I'd agree with you-- that law shouldn't go through (and I'M ***). If we were talking about getting tax incentives (as women do) for being business owners, I would vote against it. And if I thought gays should get a special weight on their admissions to universities just for wanting to suck the occasional ****, I still wouldn't vote for it.
But that's because my definition of equal consideration is just that--equal consideration. I don't think that being a minority should give you greater rights so as to balance the field. I think the government should give you equal rights, and let you try to make up the difference in the social realm yourself (which we have made HUGE strides in during the last four decades).
The very fact that you assume that someone who is *** (closeted or not) is automatically a hypocrite if he opposes *** marriage shows the degree to which that "pick a side" mentality pervades your political thinking. It just can't occur to you that not everyone makes political decisions that way. thus, you constantly run around ascribing false motives to others, based on why you would do what they are doing, rather than considering that they might do it for a completely different reason...
Actually, the evidence for him being a hypocrite is overflowing. So much so, that I can label him a reason for MANY reasons.
1. He has been married and has 4 daughters, yet tells the public he's straight and speaks out against gays. Yet he tries to sneak of to *** bars for a one night stand with the first dumb *** that'll have him. I don't care WHAT job you work, that's enough to be a hypocrite.
2. As I said above, he consistently votes against *** rights bills, even if they have no significant legal impact. ****, even if they have minor legal impact. And contrary to your staunch idea that he MUST be voting for these for reasons having nothing to do with gays, research tells us nothing but the opposite. In his career, he has literally voted on so few (and potentially no) bills regarding *** rights that organizations across the state had considered him one of their main blocks for years.
Charles Moran, spokesman for the Log Cabin Republicans, a national *** Republican organization, said it is common for conservatives who are not out about their sexual orientation to vote against expanding *** rights.
"A lot of people who are closeted homosexuals think it will give them cover, but instead it increases the heat," Moran said.
How about, before you spout out crap, YOU do research. You know, before you start screaming at others for not doing theirs.