Christian fundamentalists are not known to admire Charles Darwin, but Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) sort of channeled the influential 19th century English naturalist when weaving together a bizarre fabricated case against gay marriage.
On C-SPAN’s Washington Journal on Wednesday, the far-right representative told a sort of twisted Sunday School version of “On The Origins of Species,” declaring that heterosexuality is “what nature dictates should be marriage.”
“If you took four couples, men and women—couple, man and wife–and you put those four couples on an island that had everything they need to survive,” Gohmert said, “and then you took four couples of men,” Gohert added. “And then another island of four couples of women with all they need to survive, then come back in 200 years, and see, if you don’t believe in God at all, see what nature has done: which group, which civilization has survived and which has ended.”
“I think, that would tell us, even if you don’t believe in God, what nature dictates should be marriage—a building block,” he added.
During his hypothesizing, Gohmert jokes that “maybe we could have a big government survey or study to spend billions of dollars to study this.”
The conservative Texas lawmaker blasted the June 26 Supreme Court decision, which forced all states to recognize same sex marriages, and claimed that discrimination against same sex couples could be addressed in other ways.
“People that have loved individuals from the same sex and been prohibited from seeing them in the hospital—those kinds of things we should fix,” he said. “If you love someone and they love you, you oughta be able to see them in the hospital, you oughta be able to leave them property. There are a lot of things we could fix without destroying the building block.”
Gohmert then went on to accuse Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg of sparking some kind of Constitutional crisis.
“In the case of marriage, two of our justices–Kagan and Ginsburg–had presided over same-sex marriage. There was no question they believed it was constitutional. That means, they were disqualified. The law, 28 USC 455, says any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify—not maybe—in any preceding in which impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” he claimed.
“We had two justices that were totally disqualified. They acted illegally. They violated the Constitution. That’s an illegitimate and improper decision,” Gohmert added.
