Last night, C-SPAN aired the lasted segment of Students & Leaders series, with Rep. John Culberson (R-TX). Addressing a group of D.C. students, he repeatedly emphasized the need for less government interference in Americans’ lives. “I’m very focused on eliminating — shutting down as much of the federal government’s functions as I can,” Culberson said, while espousing state and local control.
However, when a student asked Culberson about state control over gay marriage, Culberson rapidly descended into incoherence. He began by declaring, “It’s up to the states.” But by the end of his rambling answer, he tried to explain why the federal government “cannot permit” a state like Vermont to make its own rules. All this while repeating that people’s “privacy is fundamental”:
CULBERSON: Well under the 10th amendment, the states have a first responsibility for providing for public safety, public health, public morality. All issues that just affect the people within that state. It’s up to the states. And you either follow the constitution or you don’t. […]
Federal law cannot permit — if one state, Vermont, wants to do that, you can’t let that cross state lines. You’ve got to let — frankly, a lot of these issues have got to be left up to the states. But the federal government cannot permit for example — The federal government has a legitimate role in interstate commerce. And that’s where the federal government comes in. I think the federal government can’t recognize — shouldn’t recognize it, it’s just a bad idea. And uh — But fundamentally, the right of privacy’s fundamental. I’m not interested — what people do at home’s their own business.
Culberson’s response reminded ThinkProgress of a famous scene from the movie Billy Madison in which a debate judge tells Adam Sandler’s character, “Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to” your “rambling, incoherent response.” Watch our compilation:
At one point in his answer, Culberson tried to frame the question as one of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment:
If you provide federal civil rights to an individual based on one particular type of private sexual behavior, under the Equal Protection clause, I’m obligated to provide civil rights protection to any other type of private sexual behavior. Think about that.
Of course, the government already provides civil rights to one particular type of sexual behavior — heterosexual behavior. By Culberson’s own argument, therefore, the government is “obligated” to protect homosexual “behavior” as well.
It’s no wonder that Culberson has earned a a zero percent rating from the Human Rights Campaign every year he’s been in office.
Transcript:
QUESTION: You said a lot about how the federal government shouldn’t be in our house. My question is about gay marriage. So do you really think the federal government should be in our house, or the government shouldn’t, because as I know gay marriage is — it’s the state government that controls that. So what do you think of that?
CULBERSON: Well under the 10th Amendment, the states have a first responsibility for providing for public safety, public health, public morality. All issues that just affect the people within that state. It’s up to the states. And you either follow the constitution or you don’t.
Now, personally, I think — and it’s I think also self-evident — that you’ve got to have a marriage between a man and woman or society’s not going to make it. You’re not going to have a fruitful, growing, productive civilization unless marriage is between a man and a woman. I mean, that’s just history — history will show you that. But it is a person’s private business. Their private life is their private business. I’m fundamentally a libertarian at heart. And I do believe in the 10th amendment. I don’t want to hear about somebody’s private behavior.
Now think about this. If we provide civil rights protection to somebody based on private sexual behavior — well, the Constitution, 14th Amendment, says we have to provide equal protection. Now last question: If you provide federal civil rights to an individual based on one particular type of private sexual behavior, under the Equal Protection clause, I’m obligated to provide civil rights protection to any other type of private sexual behavior. Think about that.
This doesn’t work logically, it doesn’t work for the country as a whole. Fundamentally, we’ve got to preserve and protect the Constitution. Federal law cannot permit — if one state, Vermont, wants to do that, you can’t let that cross state lines. You’ve got to let — frankly, a lot of these issues have got to be left up to the states but the federal government cannot permit for example — The federal government has a legitimate role in interstate commerce. And that’s where the federal government comes in. I think the federal government can’t recognize — shouldn’t recognize it, it’s just a bad idea. And uh — But fundamentally, the right of privacy’s fundamental. I’m not interested — what people do at home’s their own business.