Gohmert Again, And Schoolhouse Rock!

I think some members of Congress need a little refresher course on U.S. Government.

Speaking of Congressmen that need a refresher on government and history, our favorite Texas Congressman Louie Gohmert is still blaming the wrong people for the Boston bombing.  Last week he said this:

“He [Obama] has advisers around him that do not have the same goal as he does. He has people around him giving advice who support the Muslim Brotherhood and who steer him in wrong directions”

Well, he must have thought that wasn't crazy enough because today he said this:

"Think about it, when your attorney general spent more of his legal career helping terrorists than defending the country, then you know we all have certain biases and lean certain ways."

Louie Gohmert is asserting that Attorney General Eric Holder has a bias in favor of terrorists and against defending the country.  I would like to know where he is getting his information, or what he considers "bias in favor of terrorists."  I know it is hard to cite your own rectum, but give it a go, Louie.  

Maybe he thinks reading the bombing suspect his Miranda rights and not torturing him is a bias in favor of the terrorists.  Treating the suspect like a human being and an American citizen, of which he is both, is just too much for those on the far right.  The Right (capital "r") have been in a tizzy since authorities captured the suspect and did not lose their minds interrogating him.  The government officials are handling it like they should be and are conducting a proper investigation.

Answers will come.  Allow the authorities to do their jobs.

7-Year-Old Football Star Meets President

Remember this kid?

That is 7-year-old Jack Hoffman, who has been fighting pediatric brain cancer for a long time.  He became friends with Nebraska running back Rex Burkhead and gained some media attention locally.  Today he met with President Obama.

Here is Jack talking about his meeting with the President.  And here is Rex Burkhead talking about the trip to the White House.  Burkhead accompanied Jack and his family to Washington. 

It's very cool that President Obama would take the time for something like this.  Hopefully this does raise awareness for childhood cancer like Rex Burkhead said.  

Friday Shakedown

I know it's Saturday, but I'm still calling it the Friday Shakedown...

We begin the cavalcade of crazy with Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX).  He loves his conspiracy theories so much and is a great example of what is wrong with this country.  Here is what he said this week about the Obama administration:

“He has advisers around him that do not have the same goal as he does. He has people around him giving advice who support the Muslim Brotherhood and who steer him in wrong directions,”

He really thinks the President has advisors who support radical Islam.  This isn't the first time he has said things to that effect.  Thank you, Texas, for sending this clown to Congress.  The rest of the country is so excited to have him help make decisions on their behalf.

Next, we have a story from the University of Arizona.  Anyone that has frequented a college camp in the past several years knows there are always very religious people holding signs, telling people they are going to hell, or otherwise trying to spread the "good" word.  I saw this a lot in my undergraduate days.

At the University of Arizona, there is a student, Dean Saxton, who regularly does this.  He has been nicknamed "Brother Dean" and seems to have become a fixture of the campus.  Here is a video of his demonstration on Tuesday where he held up a sign that said "You Deserve Rape."  The video is long but the introduction fills in some of the story.

University of Arizona spokeswoman Jennifer Fitzenberger released a statement to The Huffington Post on the controversial Brother Dean demonstration:

The University of Arizona does not endorse or condone the message of the campus speaker - in fact, it considers it to be vile and repugnant. However, because universities in particular are bastions for free speech, even when it is offensive, the University of Arizona will uphold the right of this speaker and all others to engage in constitutionally protected speech on its campus. Should the University receive complaints or otherwise become aware of allegations of misconduct that fall outside the realm of constitutionally protected speech, it will investigate and deal with them as appropriate.

In a way, he's like a live-action internet troll.

CNN's Don Lemon Discusses BSA Lifting Ban On Gays

CNN invited John Stemberger and Zack Wahls on Don Lemon's show earlier this week to discuss the Boy Scout's proposal of lifting the ban on homosexuals for scouts but not scouters.  

Here is the exchange:

John Stemberger says it is an awful proposal, and that seems to be the end of where he and I agree.

Stemberger says that it would destroy Scouting as we know it. He lists a bunch of religious groups that would not agree with the change of policy and warns of a mass exodus from the Boy Scouts. I don’t see how this is necessarily a bad thing. All the bigots will be out of the organization just like that and you will be left with an organization that can teach leadership and camping skills without all the discrimination.

“Foster open homosexuality among its boys” Does he think this means someone is going to sprinkle gay people in among the troops? What a ridiculous proposition. It simply means you cannot discriminate based on sexual preference, open or otherwise.

This man is a disgrace to scouting. Like Zach Wahls stated, he wants gay scouts to violate the first tenant of the Scout Law, trustworthy. He wants them to lie about who they are. Being open and comfortable with who you are is liberating and allows you to concentrate on other things, like maybe Scouting for Food or other programs that help people.

There are many LGBT folks involved in Scouting now whether Stemberger acknowledges it or not. They are doing good work and it is only fair to them, and the organization, to allow them to continue serving those troops without lying about who they are.

They’re halfway there. Now, we need them to get rid of the ban completely.

Mark Sanford And The "Empty Chair" Meme

Former South Carolina Governor, and famed Appalachian Trail hiker, Mark Sanford is running for Congress!  But that, of course, is not what brings him to the blog.  He is following the GOP meme of trying to debate fictional Democrats, whether it is Clint Eastwood at the Republican National Convention talking to an empty chair or now Mark Sanford trying to debate a cardboard cutout of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

Governor, she's never going to answer your questions so stop pausing for "her" to answer.  She's cardboard.  It really does demonstrate that many Republicans simply do not understand what the Democrats are saying.  They argue and rail against a boogeyman that doesn't exist.  The empty chair is a great example of this.  If they would listen and actually participate in a dialogue, maybe something would finally get done.

In case you forgot:

Child Dies From Parent Negligence... Again

Herbert and Catherine Schaible were on probation for the 2009 death of their child after he became sick and they refused to take him to the doctor. They prescribe to a Christian sect that believes in faith healing and have not been to a doctor themselves in a long time. They lost their 8-month-old son last week after he was suffering from diarrhea and breathing problems for over a week.  

Faith healing doesn't work, medical science does. This is simply a fact and the conditions that the children died from were very treatable. The boy who died in 2009 suffered from coughing, congestion, crankiness and a loss of appetite.  

The parents are grieving, and I'm sure it is genuine. I don't think anyone would argue that their feelings are not real.  However, in cases like this, the argument needs to be brought up: Why to we give religion a pass often when they believe silly things?

Authorities are waiting to press charges until after the autopsy of the child but they will be charged with something.  But what is the appropriate level they should be charged?  Is it manslaughter because they didn't mean to kill their son?  Is it child neglect?  I don't think prayer can be considered adequate attention to the child's health.  Maybe it will be a combination of charges.  

There is no excuse for these beliefs in 2013.  This couple killed their son, end of story.  Their inaction is inexcusable and should be punished.  They certainly demonstrate that Christian fundamentalism is alive and well in America.

Stop The Gun Metaphors, Please

Folks in Benton County, Arkansas are unhappy that their State Legislators approve the expansion of Medicaid in their state as part of Obamacare.  Emotions are so high that columnist Chris Nogy wrote in a newsletter that his fellow Republicans might want to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights on some legislators.

"So what do we do? While I believe that we as a party are done in Arkansas after this, if there is ANY hope of our survival, it is going to take not being forgiving. Not only for past actions, but to show those who will come in the future that the cost of failure to do the thing they were elected to do will be significant. We need to be making a point of this failure from this moment on. We need to make a public statement from our groups that we no longer support those who turned on us, that we will NOT be working to their re-election, that we will be actively seeking replacements, and perhaps even working towards recall. We as the Party have to stand up and say ‘no more – you were given a job, you campaigned on the promise to do this job, you had the ability to do this job, you had the votes each time to do this job, and yet for no legitimate reason you betrayed the trust put in you by the electorate and you are now completely and permanently politically finished.’

We need to let those who will come in the future to represent us that we are serious. The 2nd amendment means nothing unless those in power believe you would have no problem simply walking up and shooting them if they got too far out of line and stopped responding as representatives. It seems that we are unable to muster that belief in any of our representatives on a state or federal level, but we have to have something, something costly, something that they will fear that we will use if they step out of line. If we can’t shoot them, we have to at least be firm in our threat to take immediate action against them politically, socially, and civically if they screw up on something this big. Personally, I think a gun is quicker and more merciful, but hey, we can’t."

This metaphor is used way too often by the GOP.  Sarah Palin enjoyed encouraging her supporters by saying, "don't retreat, reload."  Her website also had a map:

 

One of those targets over Arizona was Rep. Gabby Giffords' district.  Giffords is, if you don't remember, the Congresswoman who took a bullet to the head, in 2011, after a gunman opened fire at one of her outdoor rallies in her district.  In addition to wounding the Congresswoman, 17 people were shot and 6 died.  The youngest victim was a 9-year-old girl.  Is it coincidence that the gunman targeted her and didn't get the idea from Palin's website?  Perhaps.  But there is a big problem with even suggesting constituents kill their lawmakers.  That is not how our system works.  The 2nd Amendment was not written to stop more people from having health coverage.  

In 2010, Sharron Angle ran against Harry Reid for Senate in Nevada and seemed to suggest that violence might be the answer in case she didn't win the election.  I say "seemed to suggest" because she refused to answer questions about what she meant by "second amendment remedies."

These are only a few examples but they are not isolated incidents.  This rhetoric is used all the time in politics and predominantly on the Right.  It needs to stop because sometimes it can be taken seriously and people get hurt.  There are much more constructive ways to make a point.  If you cannot make your point without making a gun metaphor, perhaps you need to open a thesaurus.

Cowardly Senate

Same old nonsense this past week with the Senate voting against universal background checks.  A policy that had 90% public support.  Well done, Senate.

"Serve And Protect The Constitution"

The bombing in Boston has caused emotions to run high for everyone.  People have been glued to their seats waiting for the latest news on the fugitive second suspect.  So much so that CNN didn't even bother getting the truth before reporting on it.  But that isn't what I want to talk about here.

Now, the suspect has been caught alive. But even before he was captured, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) suggested that the suspect be held as an enemy combatant. He released a series of tweets that provided a good view on his mindset.

If captured, I hope Administration will at least consider holding the Boston suspect as enemy combatant for intelligence gathering purposes. 

3:33 PM - 19 Apr 2013 

If the #Boston suspect has ties to overseas terror organizations he could be treasure trove of information.

3:37 PM - 19 Apr 2013 

The last thing we may want to do is read Boston suspect Miranda Rights telling him to "remain silent."

3:40 PM - 19 Apr 2013 

The Obama Administration needs to be contemplating these issues and should not rush into a bad decision.

3:43 PM - 19 Apr 2013

Rushing into a bad decision would certainly be bad. Like not reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the bomber, his Miranda Rights. That was a bad decision. Or not trying him in a civilian court, preferably in Boston. That would also be a bad decision.

Like it or not, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is an American citizen and deserves all the protections a citizen gets under the Constitution. We have shown that we can handle prosecuting terrorists at home. We can do it again.

Republicans love to quote the Founding Fathers so here are a few yo should really read, Senator.

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine 1795

"The Habeas Corpus secures every man here, alien or citizen, against everything which is not law, whatever shape it may assume." --Thomas Jefferson to A. H. Rowan, 1798. ME 10:61

"Why suspend the habeas corpus in insurrections and rebellions? The parties who may be arrested may be charged instantly with a well defined crime; of course, the judge will remand them. If the public safety requires that the government should have a man imprisoned on less probable testimony in those than in other emergencies, let him be taken and tried, retaken and retried, while the necessity continues, only giving him redress against the government for damages. Examine the history of England. See how few of the cases of the suspension of the habeas corpus law have been worthy of that suspension. They have been either real treasons, wherein the parties might as well have been charged at once, or sham plots, where it was shameful they should ever have been suspected. Yet for the few cases wherein the suspension of the habeas corpus has done real good, that operation is now become habitual and the minds of the nation almost prepared to live under its constant suspension." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788. ME 7:97

Friday Shakedown

The continuing story out of Boston keeps changing so it would be crazy to start writing about that.  It was a tragedy and hopefully they will catch the second suspect soon.

The Boy Scouts has come out with a possible change in policy on homosexuals.  They are apparently considering allowing gay youths to join the organization, so that's promising, however the proposal has gay scouters still banned.  So if you were a gay scout and thought you learned a lot in the organization and wanted to help future youths have that same experience you did... you couldn't.  Well done, BSA, falling so far from the mark.  I suppose the fact that they are entertaining the idea of lifting any part of the ban is promising news.  I sincerely hope that they reconsider their partial ban lift and do the right thing completely.

Georgia Time Warp

In Georgia, four high school student's approached Georgia Governor Nathan Deal to ask him to endorse their proposition to integrate their high school prom.  Rather than be shocked that there is a school in his state that still has a segregated prom and attempt to rectify the situation, he brushed the students off.  He said such an endorsement would amount to a "publicity stunt."

While it may be a publicity stunt, or could easily be one, you endorse this integrated prom, Governor.  This is a no brainer.  Brown vs. Board of Education was 60 years ago and we still have stuff like this going on?  You should be angry that this is happening at all but you should be angrier that it is happening in your state.  Some high school students came and asked for your endorsement probably because they thought you could help their cause.  Really, they served to you a beautiful campaign issue on a silver platter.  You could have been the governor that helped stamp out the last remnants of segregation in your state but instead you have brushed it off as unimportant.

This makes one believe or at least suspect that you don't care if the prom remains segregated.  Worse, it might make one wonder if you think there should be more segregation.  Comments like this, while perhaps having good intentions, are not helping:

We’ve come a long way in the state of Georgia. We don’t need things like this being divisive. We think we have put most of those issues behind us. None of us condone things that would send the wrong message about where we are with regard to race relations. But by the same token, I think that people understand that some of these are just local issues and private issues, and not something that the state government needs to have its finger involved in.

Integration wouldn't have happened in the first place without government intervention.  It's foolish to hide behind that now.  You support things like his because they are the right thing to do, Governor.  I'm sure you'll get the segregationist vote in the next election.  Congratulations.

Gohmert Joins King

Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-TX) joined Rep. Steve King (R_IA) in his blaming the Boston bombing on immigrants or people "that look Hispanic."  He and other conservatives are claiming that the Boston bombing is a reason why immigration reform needs to be delayed.  

“We have seen this in Israel,” Gohmert said of the Boston attacks and recalled visiting areas that had been struck by suicide bombers. “Finally the Israeli people said this is enough. They built a fence and the rest is a wall to prevent snipers from telling their kids. They finally stopped the domestic violence from people that wanted to destroy them. I am concerned we need to do that as well.”

“We know Al Qaeda has camps on the Mexican border,” he said. “We have people that are trained to act Hispanic when they are radical Islamists.”

How do you know this?  Where is the evidence?  It would seem like you are just saying this to blow that racist dog-whistle for your constituents.  

I would put money on it being done by a white, right-wing extremist.  

Thank you, Texas, for sending this idiot to Congress.

Steve King Continues To Be Awful

Today, Rep. Steve King (R-IA), gave his thoughts on the bombings in Boston.  He has decided to put forward that an immigrant might have done it and since it might be an immigrant, immigration reform must be stalled.

"If we can’t background-check people that are coming from Saudi Arabia, how do we think we are going to background-check the 11 to 20 million people that are here from who knows where?"

He clearly is blowing dog whistles for his perpetually crazy constituency.  I would like to see what evidence he is privy to that indicates to him that it is an immigrant.  I think he is simply stating the first racist, ignorant nonsense that enters his head.

He has acknowledged that we can only speculate at this point, but then went on to provide the most ridiculous suggestion yet.  

King has a history of being extremely anti-immigration holding questionable beliefs.  He also has a history of saying crazy, racist and ignorant things.  So really, this is just business as usual for the Congressman.

It would be nice if the people of Iowa booted him from office, but I don;t see that happening any time soon.

Boston Massacre Part Deux

Obviously news has spread very quickly this afternoon abut the attack in Boston.  It is certainly a terrorist attack, but the question is what sort of terrorists: Foreign or Domestic?  Only time will tell.  Hopefully we'll have a few answers by the end of the week.  

*Note: The runner knocked down by the blast in the picture above is reportedly unhurt.

"We Came Here To Do Something"

Earlier on CNN, Sens. Pat Toomey (R-PA) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) gave their take on gun regulations and defended their proposal for tighter gun regulations.  

CROWLEY: Are either one of you worried about any kind of challenge, primary or general?

MANCHIN: Let me just say I know Pat and I have talked, we came here to do something. We came here to make a difference. If you would have met with the families, the strongest people I’ve ever met with, the families of the Newtown victims, they never asked for anybody to take their guns away. They never asked to repeal the second amendment. They said, ‘we’re gun owners and we respect and honor all that.’ We know, and they’ll even say, we know that this bill that you’re working on would not have saved our children. We know that. But it might save somebody else’s child somebody. I mean, if we just had half the courage [the Newtown families] had, Candy, just half the courage. So, yes, I came to do something and I want to do something.

TOOMEY: In 1999 I supported expanding background checks. I just think it makes common sense. And I’ll just let the political chips fall the way they fall.

Watch it here:

We need more in Congress like them.

Michelle Bachmann's Greatest Hits

Last fall, Rep. Michele Bachmann held onto her seat in Congress despite Democratic challenger Jim Graves' efforts. Now, Graves wants a rematch in 2014.  "A lot of people come up to me and say we're kind of embarrassed by our representation in Washington," he has said. "People are tired of her antagonistic, propagating gridlock."

It is true that she is one of the most polarizing members of the House of Representatives.  I thought I would throw together some of the most ridiculous things she has said/done in the past few years.

Michele Bachmann on Homosexuals:

Bachmann doesn't understand Obamacare:

I wish Jim Graves luck in 2014.  We need to get her out of Congress.

Friday Shakedown

Tea Party Republicans in New Hampshire have called for the arrests of the lawmakers that voted to repeal the stand your ground law in that state. They say that those lawmakers have violated their oaths of office by trying to trample the Constitution.  I guess we're just supposed to forget all those ridiculous times the stand your ground laws have been cited to protect shooters.  This is a perfect example of this law being abused.

California Bill Targets Boy Scouts' Policy

The Boy Scouts of America has been under fire for a while due to its policy of discrimination against gay scouts and scouters. However, a new California bill that passed the Senate Governance and Finance Committee with a vote 5 to 2 would eliminate tax breaks for organizations that discriminate against youths.  The bill would protect gays, transgender, and even atheists whose discrimination is often glossed over.

This is the first bill of its kind in any state.  It would make groups, like the Boy Scouts, who discriminate to pay taxes on donations and other contributions.  

The Youth Equality Act, sponsored by Sen. Ricardo Lara, D-Long Beach, would deny tax-exempt status to youth groups that discriminate on the basis of gender identity, race, sexual orientation, nationality, religion or religious affiliation.

Scouting executives are slated to vote on changing the policy, to make it more inclusive, in May.

Intellecticide

More Slippery Slope Arguments From The Right

Fox News contributor, Erick Erickson, decided to play up the slippery slope argument against same-sex marriage in a blog post on RedState.  Apparently, supporters of same-sex marriage would quickly shift their support to incestuous and polygamous marriages.  This claim is, of course, ridiculous but will not stop fools like Erickson from making it.  Here is what he said:

Via MediaMatters.

Seriously. Why not incest.

[...] 

If love and commitment are the justification for marriage, why exempt this? 

[...] 

So why not fathers marrying sons and moms marrying daughters? Is it because of the "ick" factor? Why should that preclude it?

If life comes down to who you love and who loves you back, if a father and son love each other so much they want to get married, there is little moral difference between two people of the same sex getting married who are not related and want to be and two people of the same sex who already are related becoming closer. 

[...]

The truth is, many, many, many of the same people who are now in support of gay marriage, but would oppose this or polygamy will, once the next step is advanced, support these things too. They just have to lie about it for now until they can shift public opinion further.

This is such an idiotic argument, it's hardly worth the time to discuss.  Here I am though, wasting my time on him.

Why not incest?  Because more often than not, incestuous relationships are exploitative.  Especially in situations where it is an adult and a child, like he has suggested.  Also, any relationship like that with a child involved is harmful too the child both mentally and potentially physically.  

If his argument were true, you would see many European countries, which already largely have equal rights for LGBT couples, rushing to approve incest and polygamy but you don't see that.  

I'm not sure which I find more offensive, his assertion that people like me are lying about some secret support for incest and polygamy with the intention of shifting the fight or his claim that same-sex marriage is morally the same as incest and polygamy.

Morality is on the side of the LGBT rights supporters.  The Right's assumed monopoly on morality is reprehensible.  Allowing two consenting adults to have the same legal rights as other adults in this country is not immoral, opposing that is.  That is what this fight is actually about, the law.  No one is arguing that churches will be forced to hold a religious ceremony for same-sex couples.  There are end-of-life decisions that they are excluded from, tax incentives, right to spousal benefits for insurance and many other reasons.  Can someone please give me a reason to oppose these rights that does not center around religion?  I didn't think so.

Erickson is just another troll.

Saturday Shakedown

I missed posting yesterday so here is a rare Saturday Shakedown!

North Carolina will not be establishing a religion thanks to the Speaker of the NC State Legislature, Thom Tillis (R).  He has announced that the measure will not be brought up for a vote.  This is a relief because we shouldn't be having a discussion like that in this day and age.  This is a settled issue with hundreds of years of precedent.

However, this discussion in North Carolina has prompted some polls to be taken with some frightening results.  

The new survey finds that 34 percent of adults would favor establishing Christianity as the official state religion in their own state, while 47 percent would oppose doing so. Thirty-two percent said that they would favor a constitutional amendment making Christianity the official religion of the United States, with 52 percent saying they were opposed.

 Tennessee is proposing a bill that would withhold welfare assistance to families whose children are not doing well in school.  There is already a revolving door when it comes to poverty and poor education, why make it worse with something like this?  Education is important and there are a lot of factors that contribute to poverty.  We cannot hurt kids by withholding food because they get a bad grade.  That is cruel and unusual.

North Carolina Republicans Failed Civics

I thought South Carolina was the crazy Carolina but it seems North Carolina wants to give them a run for their money.

North Carolina is trying to establish a state religion.  You read that right.  They don't care that this is obviously against the first amendment.

The First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The measure is supported by nine Republicans in the Legislature. They introduced this after a lawsuit took issue with Rowan county committee meetings opening with, way more often than not, an obviously Christian prayer.

They claim that they can pass this legislation because of that first word in the amendment: Congress.  And they are right in that the way the amendment is written, it would not be applied to North Carolina.  They also claim that the Tenth Amendment, which gives the states the rights to do things if the Constitution does not address it, does not stop them from establishing a religion.  The bill itself states that the Bill of Rights only applies to the federal government and does not stop states from passing any law that defies any part of the Constitution.

The Tenth Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Ok, ok, let's say I'm on board with all that.  It does not really mention anything about the establishment clause.  If only there were something that would explicitly state that the first amendment... no, it needs to be more specific than that... the establishment clause itself...

Everson v. Board of Education, (1947) was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court which applied the Establishment Clause in the country's Bill of Rights to State law.

WOW, look at that!  The issue has already been addressed!  I mean as long as it isn't before 1947...nope, I checked the calendar and we're good.  North Carolina can breathe a sigh of relief and not waste their time on a rehashing of previously decided case law.  But we all know they won't.

This follows a trend of Republican led legislatures in Red states of proposing, and sometimes passing, ridiculously illegal laws.  I have covered some of these laws in relation to gun control here on the blog. I really do not understand how they can continue with stuff like this.  Nullification, of which this is a cousin, cannot and will not stand.  

Maybe for fun the federal government should turn North Carolina loose, just as an example to the other states.  I really don't think they've thought it through.

Failure to Launch

They're Getting Desperate

Georgia GOP Chairwoman Sue Everhart is afraid of gay marriage, but not for the reasons that are usually argued.

"You may be as straight as an arrow, and you may have a friend that is as straight as an arrow. 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.”

That's right, she's afraid straight people will get married to their same-sex friends just for benefits.  In a way, I suppose she is right.  People could do that.  There should not be any requirement to prove your... gayness in order to get married to someone of the same sex.  And people get married for all sorts of reasons.  Is she implying that straight people cannot do this now with an opposite sex friend?  My guess is that people getting married just for benefits would be just as prevalent as it is now should same-sex marriage become legal on a national level.

They are certainly getting desperate.