1. The Ten Commandments outlaw killing and adultery but that doesn’t seem to bother your colleagues as much as gay marriage. Why do you think the Ten Commandments are less important to them than gay marriage?
2. Would you accept a compromise in which we outlawed not only gay marriages but support of deadly wars or cheating on your wife? If not, why not?
3. The Ten Commandants say “You can work during the six weekdays and do all your tasks. But the seventh day is a Sabbath to God your Lord. Do not do anything that constitutes work. [This includes] you, your son, your daughter, your slave, your maid, your animal, and the foreigner in your gates.” You have not yet formalized this into a constitutional amendment and so your maids, slaves, animals and proximate foreigners are running around hog wild on Sundays. Isn’t this more dangerous than a few gays getting married and shouldn’t you tackle it first?
4. Exodus tells us to kill those who work on Sunday. This seems to conflict with the federal code, not to mention the Ten Commandments. Shouldn’t we worry more about Seventh Day slaughter than about gay marriage?
4. Since religions differ sharply on this issue, if this amendment passes it will directly conflict with the First Amendment which says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Which constitutional amendment should we then follow?
5. Since Republicans believe so firmly in the sanctity of marriage, how do you explain the following from the New York Daily News in August 2004: “With thousands of Republicans set to invade the city this summer, high-priced escorts and strippers are preparing for one grand old party. Agencies are flying in extra call girls from around the globe to meet the expected demand during the Aug. 30-Sept. 2 gathering at Madison Square Garden.”
6. Explain the moral difference between a Republican politician opposing gay marriage and one participating in gay sex which, according to police and news reports, happens from time to time. Do we need an amendment preserving the sanctity of gay sex outside of marriage?
7. If this were 1956 instead of 2006, would you have supported a ban on inter-racial marriages, which most states had? How does the current amendment differ in spirit – rather than merely the target – from the one proposed in 1911: “Intermarriage between negroes or persons of color and Caucasians . . . within the United States . . . is forever prohibited.”
8. Have you ever had contact with a woman during her period of menstrual uncleanliness, something outlawed by the Bible? Should we have a constitutional amendment to prevent this sort of thing from happening again?
9. How would you deal with the issue raised by Professor Emeritus James Kaufman of the University of Virginia: “Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations.” Do you think this biblical right should be also codified in a constitutional amendment? How will this affect our plans for construction of a border wall?
10. Leviticus reminds us of other sins far more prevalent than gay marriage. For example, “These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you. . . ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcasses in abomination.” Do we need a constitutional amendment to ban the eating of shrimp, crab, lobster, clams and mussels?
11. Homosexuality has been found by scientists in 450 other species. Isn’t it a bit late to be trying to suppress it in ours?
12. While gay marriages produce some gay children, why do heterosexual marriages do the same?
13. Since we’re going back to first principles, would you mind adding a section that makes wives the husband’s property?
14. Which of these other steps – all Biblically endorsed – should be taken to preserve the sanctity of marriage: allowing men to take on concubines in addition to their wives, stoning to death any new wife found not to be a virgin, requiring women to marry the man who raped them, banning interfaith marriages, and banning divorce?
15. Given the foregoing, is it fair to describe those pushing the marriage amendment as heretical, hypocritical and blasphemous Christians? History shows that such people are far more dangerous, on average, than gays. Shouldn’t we do something about them before we worry about those gay weddings?