Gay Pennsylvania Representative Prevented From Speaking About DOMA Victory As An Affront To God

18213After the historic victory in the Windsor case, gay state Rep. Brian Sims (left), D-Philadelphia, rose to speak about the decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act on the floor of the Pennsylvania House. He did so during a time when members are allowed to discuss any subject of importance. However, he was blocked by Republican Rep. Daryl Metcalfe who objected on the basis that any such comments would constitute a “rebellion against . . . God.”

Rep. Daryl Metcalfe explained his decision to object and block his colleague:

“I did not believe that as a member of that body that I should allow someone to make comments such as he was preparing to make that ultimately were just open rebellion against what the word of God has said, what God has said, and just open rebellion against God’s law.”

When two other Democratic legislators rose to speak in support of Sims, they were also blocked.

If this quote is accurate, Metcalfe has succeeded in combining the rejection of the separation of church and state with the denial of free speech. It is an impressive display of religious intolerance when one of his colleagues was trying to discuss a major ruling of constitutional law. It is, to use Metcalfe’s terminology, a rebellion against constitutional values.

Source: Newsworks

77 thoughts on “Gay Pennsylvania Representative Prevented From Speaking About DOMA Victory As An Affront To God”

  1. davidM:

    You have no idea who god is “mean” to. Is he mean to children in Syria cowering before the bomb blasts? How about kids swept away by the tornado or the folks killed by the exploding fertilizer plant. He hasn’t talked to you, has he? And his “Word” is all over the place, contradictory, and disputed by every religion. I do really enjoy the narcissim of those who think they have a driect communication link with the Creator of the Universe to the exclusion of everyone else who believes differently. It must be nice to be so sure, but then again only the fool is sure.

    BTW,The Constitution doesn’ t say anything about being innocent until proven guilty, the right to marry, or even that you are free to enjoy a cup of tea in the afternoon. My guess is that religous nuts somewhere would like to curtail them too under the rubric of original intent or some made-up religious dogma penned by some First Century author.

    1. Mespo – innocent until proven guilty is established through common law, as is the right to marry, based upon its function in reproduction and establishing a family through copulation. These are not Constitutionally protected rights. The Constitution was never meant to identify every right of the individual, but only to identify some of them. A major objection to adopting a Bill of Rights was that people would mistakenly think it comprised all the rights belonging to the people.

      Unfortunately, judges and lawyers nowadays generally seem to interpret Constitutionally protected rights to be anything somebody wants to do as long as it doesn’t appear to hurt anybody else. They do this because for their perspective to have the power of law, it must be based upon something already written by the legislature. So they twist and wrangle words to make it say what they want it to say.

      It seems strange to me that you speculate about the dangers of hypothetical rubrics of religious nuts who have no power, but you seem unconcerned about the secular Justices who have power and use it to impose their peculiar hedonistic worldview upon the rest of society. We have a judiciary compelled to legislate and create an illusion of law out of twisted reasoning based upon cultural proclivities, making the false claim that the Constitution asserts something when in fact it does not.

      1. Those religious nuts work for Satan the great chameleon the charlatan of all charlatans. The deceiver of all deceivers in the religious leaders perverting whatever is in their hands.

    2. The people disputing Gods word trying to make God bad intentionally or unintentionally do not Know Jesus. When Jesus was healing a person the religious people were there to accuse him of evil. When Jesus cast out devils in people to have them be in their right mind the religious people were there to accuse him of being evil. When his disciples were doing nothing more than hulling wheat in their hands religious people were there yet again to accuse the disciples of doing evil. When Jesus was honest telling them who he was the religious people wanted to condemn him accusing him yet again of being evil. Can you see a parallel pattern of what happened then and what happens to people now?

  2. “Secondly, Another way that men ordinarily use to drive others and force them to submit to their judgments, and receive their opinion in debate, is to require the adversary to admit what they allege as a proof, or to assign a better. And this I call argumentum ad ignorantiam.” – John Locke, “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding”, (Chapter XVII section 20).

    It was a logical fallacy then, it’s a logical fallacy now.

  3. david,
    The part many people don’t seem to be getting is the fact this is an elected lawmaker who wants to speak on the floor of the legislative body to which he has been elected. I don’t believe it is is anyone’s right to specify–or limit–which subjects any lawmaker gets to address. If he wants to read the phone book, that is his right. In fact, during filibusters, the phone book really was read. So has the bible, as well as other books.

    For Rep. Daryl Metcalf to tell a colleague they are out of line for making a speech for or against any topic, especially a SCOTUS decision, is a new pinnacle of arrogance and feeling of entitlement.

    Might I recommend an emergency team who specializes in remediation for folks like Rep. Metcalf and kindred spirits, some of whom inhabit this blog.,21023/

  4. “Expect more chaos like this because SCOTUS departed from the rule of law and the Constitution to embrace a cultural fad[.]”


    DOMA was knocked down on federalism, and Prop 8 on lack of standing.

    Nothing novel here. Nothing exciting except that the Court properly used some restraint on a hot button issue.

    I hope I am long gone from this world before I fall into such a decrepit mental state that i would get worked up over such well established and non-controversial legal principles as federalism and standing that I would consider them some new fangled fads.

    Dude, both these cases upheld sovereign powers of states — one against the federal government, and the other against private actors. How is that not a tea party win?

  5. “The notion of a Christian commonwealth should be exploded forever. . . . Government should protect every man in thinking and speaking freely, and see that one does not abuse another. The liberty I contend for is more than toleration. The very idea of toleration is despicable; it supposes that some have a pre-eminence above the rest to grant indulgence, whereas all should be equally free, Jews, Turks, Pagans and Christians.”

    Jon Leland, Baptist Evangelical, 1820

    1. The Christian commonwealth as you see it does not have Christ in it. They have a book of truth but think they are crafty hiding it perverting it and omitting truth’s that are in it externally looking good.

  6. Rebellion to tyranny is obedience to God — Thomas Jefferson

    You go, Wendy

    1. What is happening is not rebellion. What is happening is good overcoming evil. Thomas Jefferson had the devil and Satan in him saying that. The devil rebelled from God when he was called Lucifer.

  7. Everyone’s got a history Nick…. If you breath and have a pulse…. Are not comatose or work for the government…. You have a history…. Some are just consistently…… Rude…. Some not so much… So… With a twisted irony…. Control yourself…. Especially…. In Texas politics…. You don’t know nothin…. And….you’ve been told….

  8. AY, I pretty much get you. And, I say this w/ flattery and irony, given your history. But, you and ID had a certain cryptology that I could usually decipher. When I can’t I ask. We’re cool.

  9. Metcalf and Davidm’s god is mean and not very constitutional. And as for homosexuality being a “cultural fad,” I guess that sexuality is a cultural fad, too, since they both been around about the same number of eons.

    1. Mespo – I agree that God is mean toward law breakers, but in regards to the Constitution, any honest person knows that the Constitution says nothing about sexuality or marriage. Even the five deceived Justices acknowledged it is a State’s rights issue, but they stirred the pot of hatred all the same. If slavery was abolished through Constitutional amendment for every state, why would it take any less a democratic process to abolish the traditional definition of marriage through the same process? I have lost all respect for the Judiciary. They have become nothing but tyrants spewing hatred toward half the country and giving half the country alleged legal justification to hate the other half. Such reminds me of the forces in play that led to the Dred Scott decision that preceded revolution.

  10. Nick,

    Just so you know… It was nothing personal….. You will be told which line to line up in…. What you do and don’t know…. What you are capable of stating and if you don’t follow the rules…. You might get labeled…. Is that understood…..

  11. Expect more chaos like this because SCOTUS departed from the rule of law and the Constitution to embrace a cultural fad based in feelings and emotion rather than rational thought.

  12. AY, It’s been spoken from above I only know “sports and movies” so your declaration of my stupidity is old news. I have known I was a white male since I was called “honky” @ age 6. I knew I was Italian way before that.

  13. Some folks just seem not to grasp the concept that Texas is going democratic…… Why I don’t know….. But more seats will be filled this next term by minorities…… Who have I’d with the democrats…..

  14. Nick,

    As soon as you realize you don’t know nothing about politics and that you are a white male….. You’ll realize you know even less…..

  15. SWM, I have jazz hands! And I am by no means saying just a libertarian party. I visualize maybe a couple moderate parties and let the Dems/Rep keep the “my party right or wrong.” It’s tough for folks here to see it because they’re so entrenched in politics and the duopoly. But the vast majority of people don’t give a rat’s ass, and are turned off by all the acrimony, much like myself. If you give those folks a different, more mainstream choice or two, hold on tight duopoly, it’s going to be a rough ride!

  16. nick s, Wendy Davis has jazzed things up and she is a democrat. I don’t find these libertarian white males currently on the scene one bit interesting. They usually talk about gun rights and are against abortion and gay rights

  17. SWM, We’ve had this dance previously. There are regions where you have a monopoly[both parties] and it’s exponentially worse. So..why not add some jazz and country to the classic and 60’s we’ve only been offered for decades. I like you SWM, but I’m tired of this dance. We need some new and varied music.

  18. Nick, Texas duopoly.?….No democrat has been elected to a statewide office since 1990. The male republican legislators literally stood in front of the females legislators so no could see or hear them speak.

Comments are closed.