Brian Sims Owns Daryl Metcalfe For Silencing Him On The PA State House Floor Because Metcalfe Believes Marriage Equality Violates “God’s Law”

cc2011036 - Gays to Watch for G Philly

State Representative Brian Sims in GQ Magazine

This week it was reported that Downingtown’s own State Representative Brian Sims was going to introduce marriage equality laws here in Pennsylvania. Brian happens to be openly gay,Β and a really great guy from my hometown. As everyone is aware, last week the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, and in doing so held:

The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others.

In other words, the constitution forbids congress from passing laws based on discrimination. I thought we figured that out a long time ago, but whatever.

On Wednesday, Brian was going to address the Supreme Court’s historic ruling striking down DOMA. However, Representative Daryl Metcalfe didn’t want to hear Brian had to say about it.

Why? Because according to Metcalfe:

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

Now, I don’t know about you, but God has never explicitly told me that homosexuality is wrong. I know it kinda sorta says it in the Old Testament, but let’s be honest… the the Old Testament says a lot of things that we don’t followΒ in a civilized society. Things like not eating shellfish, selling your daughters into slavery, beating your wife, not trimming your beard, and not wearing polyester.

As a theology minor, no one has ever been able to convince me there is a valid theological basis for discriminating against our gay brothers and sisters. My interpretation of the Bible is that Jesus would be ashamed that Christians are using His name to promote their bigotry and political agendas.

Nevertheless, even if you could make a valid argument that the Bible does frown on homosexuality, there is a huge problem called, um, the First Amendment. Last time I read it, it said:

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

Oh right, THAT First Amendment.

The United States constitution is clear – even if the Christian Bible does not approve of homosexuality, that is not a basis for passing a law against it. Because the United States does not follow “God’s law” (well, more accurately, what Daryl Metcalfe believes ‘God’s law’ is), it follows the U.S. Constitution.

Sims followed with an epic response to Metcalfe: namely, when Metcalfe took office, he swore an oath on the Bible to defend the constitution. He did not swear an oath on the constitution to uphold the Bible.

BOOM. (sorry, I am having trouble embedding the video. But you can watch Sims lay the smackdown live.)

What is deliciously ironic is that, like me, Metcalfe is a proponent of Second Amendment rights. Because yeah, the constitution protects our right to own guns, just like it protects a gay person’s liberty to marry whomever they love.

Metcalfe’s hypocritical and shameful attempt to attack our First Amendment rights (and gays’ constitutional rights), caused Chris Sawyer, a fellow libertarian, to write Metcalfe this epic letter:

Dear Representative Metcalfe:

I am a resident of this Commonwealth, a taxpayer, a consistent voter, and more importantly: a gun owner. My PA License to Carry Firearms ID is 51-00012743. I am a member of the National Rifle Association. I am also a member of the Gun Owners of America.

While I applaud your virulent support of Pennsylvania’s gun laws and your tireless effort to defend the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act to ensure continuity throughout our Commonwealth, a recent event in the General Assembly gives me pause.

Rep. Metcalfe, you recently shut down Rep. Brian Sims (D-Phila) efforts to begin a preamble for a discussion of rights Rep. Sims believes Pennsylvanians should have. You hid behind the Almighty to justify shutting down a fellow Member of the House for nothing more than his wish to enter a speech into the Record. No bill or resolution or other official business was up for consideration at the time he rose. You yourself as well as plenty of other Members also conduct such speechifying in a respectful manner.

Despite your feelings to the contrary, this action yesterday to shut down Mr. Sims has not engendered admiration of you throughout the Commonwealth. Far from it. In fact, by attempting to silence another Member for not agreeing with your platform, you are actually benefiting and bolstering Rep. Sims and diminishing your own stature in the process.

I am sure this has not gone unnoticed by Rep. Fleck; who is the first openly gay member of the General Assembly, representing a county similar in population and characteristics to Butler, and is PAGOP.

Moreover Representative Metcalfe, your action has also brought negative light to supporters of the Second Amendment by this boorish behavior. The supporters of the Second Amendment are not uniform stereotypical rural Protestant evangelical Christians.

We are a multitude of different races, ethnicities, ages, orientations and religions. Fundamental Christianity is but a subset of all the Second Amendment supporters throughout your state.

It is frustrating to witness this behavior from you as a strong supporter of Second Amendment rights. To use procedural trickery to shut down debate and conversation within Pennsylvania on a topic that deserves open debate; then reach for demagoguery to justify it belittles the intelligence of your constituents who elected you to represent them and to those who support you across the Commonwealth.

May I remind you that you yourself have wanted open debate on this very subject. You have introduced an amendment every year since you became a Representative of the PA House to amend Pennsylvania’s Constitution. The General Assembly has allowed you to open that debate whenever you so chose. I also note this year HB1349 has a dwindling number of co-sponsors. Less than last year.

Should your rhetoric and behavior worsen, perhaps we as gun owners statewide should seek another legislator to be the primary face in Harrisburg for our Second Amendment rights.

With All Due Respect,

Christopher Sawyer

11 Responses to Brian Sims Owns Daryl Metcalfe For Silencing Him On The PA State House Floor Because Metcalfe Believes Marriage Equality Violates “God’s Law”

  1. Mike Pospis says:

    I like Sims’ response but he didn’t go far enough. Metcalfe should be immediately removed from office. That he is allowed to remain in a position where he has the ability to affect the legislative process in any way is a disgrace.

    What is more terrifying, though, is the likelihood that there are many Metcalfes out there who remain silent yet continue to inject their poisonous, twisted beliefs into law.

  2. Anonymous says:

    obviously youre at the bottom of your theology class.. because in the bible (Leviticus 18:22) specifically states that another man/woman may not lie with each other…
    Acts of Immorality Forbidden

    1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

    2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am the LORD your God.

    3 After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.

    4 Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the LORD your God.

    5 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: Neh. 9.29 Β· Ezek. 18.9 ; 20.11-13 Β· Lk. 10.28 Β· Rom. 10.5 Β· Gal. 3.12 I am the LORD.

    6 ΒΆ None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD.

    7 The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

    8 The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father’s nakedness. Lev. 20.11 Β· Deut. 22.30 ; 27.20

    9 The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover. Lev. 20.17 Β· Deut. 27.22

    10 The nakedness of thy son’s daughter, or of thy daughter’s daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs is thine own nakedness.

    11 The nakedness of thy father’s wife’s daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

    12 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father’s sister: she is thy father’s near kinswoman.

    13 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother’s sister: for she is thy mother’s near kinswoman.

    14 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father’s brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt. Lev. 20.19, 20

    15 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter-in-law: she is thy son’s wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. Lev. 20.12

    16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother’s wife: it is thy brother’s nakedness. Lev. 20.21

    17 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son’s daughter, or her daughter’s daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness. Lev. 20.14 Β· Deut. 27.23

    18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, besides the other in her life time.

    19 ΒΆ Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness. Lev. 20.18

    20 Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbor’s wife, to defile thyself with her. Lev. 20.10

    21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: Lev. 20.1-5 I am the LORD.

    22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Lev. 20.13

    23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. Ex. 22.19 Β· Lev. 20.15, 16 Β· Deut. 27.21

    24 ΒΆ Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:

    25 and the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.

    26 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you:

    27 (for all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled;)

    28 that the land spew not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spewed out the nations that were before you.

    29 For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.

    30 Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God.

    • Normally I would just delete something this stupid… but have you read the rest of the Bible, and Leviticus?

      Do you shave? Wear polyester? Eat shellfish? Own slaves? Kill those who do not observe the Sabbath? Touch women while they are having their period?

      If so, congratulations, all those things are also forbidden in the Bible.

      The New Testament made many of the laws in the Old Testament irrelevant.

      Now, you know what is important, theologically?

      “Rom 8:28: And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.”

      • Hi Mr. Rushie. Not that it matters to you, but one could certainly make a legitimate argument that homosexuality is wrong from the New Testament; see 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10 and Romans 1:21-27. And while we’re on the subject of discriminating against people based on who they choose to love, do you believe a man should be allowed to marry his father? Do you believe a man should even be allowed by law to have a sexual relationship with his father? Do you believe that the laws that still exist in the U.S. forbidding such acts should be repealed? If not, why not? To argue against the right of a man to marry his father is to use the same reasoning as the opponents of gay marriage, namely, that such a relationship is in some way detrimental to the emotional, psychological, and spiritual wellbeing of those engaged in it. I say this to keep everyone honest in the debate, Mr. Rushie.

      • Leo M. Mulvihill, Jr. says:

        I defend your right to be this stupid.

      • I did not expect you, young Esquire, to respond ad hominem. But, then again, considering your primary position as a businessman who must appeal to the emotions and sympathies of the societal masses, i do understand why you did so.

      • With respect to my adversaries in this matter, this point made by yours truly is really the crux of the debate. Most individuals, even in today’s sexually liberated society, believe that a man should not be allowed to marry his father. This includes even those who believe that a man should be allowed to marry another man. However, their reasons for this belief are identical to those propogated by gay marriage opponents. For instance, they think that it’s “gross.” They ask: “Why in the world would anyone want to marry their dad?” “That’s just sick,” they protest. “If a guy wants to have sex with his dad, there is seriously something wrong with him,” they declare. They think it’s wrong, and they think it’s wrong partly because they think God says so.

        Are the people who hold to this view bigots? If they aren’t, then neither are most opponents of gay marriage. And what is this reasoning that they, and the opponents of gay marriage, are using? It is the reasoning that the belief in the immorality of an act may appropriately be based on nothing more than the light of nature itself, the innate sense of our own structured humanity, and all of recorded religious and legal history. Was a man as learned as William Blackstone really just an intolerant bigot, or was he simply more familiar with the unwritten precepts of natural law which has been lost on the now somewhat seared conscience of humanity?

        Make no mistake, some, when confronted with this question, do recognize their own hypocrisy and actually come out in support of the right of a man to marry his father, and so continue to condemn all gay marriage opponents as bigots. But at least they do so with intellectual and philosophical consistentcy. Others continue to oppose the right of a man to marry his father, and therefore realize that gay marriage opponents aren’t necessarily bigoted after all.

    • that anonymous coward says:

      “There are 6 admonishments in the Bible concerning homosexual activity and our enemies are always throwing them up to us usually in a vicious way and very much out of context. What they don’t want us to remember is that there are 362 admonishments in the Bible concerning heterosexual activity. I don’t mean to imply by this that God doesn’t love straight people, only that they seem to require a great deal more supervision.” – Lynn Lavner

      You are welcome to your beliefs, however you do not get to impose them upon others or enshrine them in law.
      Not everyone shares your faith, and if another group treated you as you treat others you would be screaming from the mountain tops about how wrong it is, but you can not seem to grasp that this behavior is wrong when your doing it.

      I can only hope that your heart might be touched by His Noodly Appendage, and you see the error of your ways.

    • Neil – this is what I don’t understand…

      What is “immoral” about two consenting adults being in a monogamous and committed relationship?

      There is a disparity between father and son, children and adults. Parents are supposed to raise their children – a child / parent relationship is not two partners raising a family. Incest also causes well-known genetic problems. The disparity of the relationship and genetic problems have caused incest to be something our society frowns upon. The reasons are legitimate.

      However, gay marriage is about promoting families. It’s about two adults who want to be committed to each other, and perhaps raise a family. I don’t understand what is immoral about it. Is there any legitimate reason not to allow gays to marry who they love? I can’t identify any.

  3. […] now, you all have heard about how right wing stick-in-the-mud Daryl Metcalfe shut down Brian Sims on the PA House floor simply because Sims wanted to make a statement about the fall of […]

  4. […] Brian Sims Owns Daryl Metcalfe For Silencing Him On The PA State House Floor Because Metcalfe Believ… […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: