Roland Burris Tries to Have It Both Ways In Gay Marriage Debate

My other fair Rolly Rolls, the recently exonerated but rarely imitated, Sen. Roland Burris of Illinois pulled off a ballsy move of attending a gay pride parade only to talk about how marriage is for making babies. Two penises and two va-jay-jays can’t procreate so … Uncle Roland is for Civil Unions?

More after the jump.

From WBBM 780:

CHICAGO(WBBM) — Senator Roland Burris was at Chicago’s Gay Pride Parade yesterday, declaring his support for civil unions but saying marriage is for “perpetuation of the species.”

WBBM’s Steve Miller reports Gay activists say it may have been the first time a sitting U-S senator has attended a Gay Pride Parade in Chicago …

“My concept of marriage is a male and a female for the perpetuation of the species, for children to be born and identify the bloodline and the heritage.

“But I’m pretty sure, as things are moving along, that that will probably change.”

Burris says he supports civil unions.

There’s a word or phrase I’m looking for here. Hold on. Gimmie a second. Contradictory? No. Crazy? Not this time. Politically bi-curious maybe … or just accepting what he sees as a looming reality?

9 thoughts on “Roland Burris Tries to Have It Both Ways In Gay Marriage Debate

  1. Honestly,. he is telling the truth. All marriages are civil unions in the eyes of the law, but not all civil unions are marriages. The debate is one of semantics. Do I believe that gay couples deserve the same rights to property and inheritance as heterosexual couples? Yes, but I think the gay community would be better served to focus on the real issue, which is property and inheritance rights — instead of worrying about the actual word itself.

  2. Outside of more scandal, does Burris have any relevance? I don’t even think he’s good for a crazytown quote anymore.

  3. There are more issues surrounding gay marriage than just property and inheritence. Such as medical decisions, health, tax benefits, parental right and next of kin. ~Like the man said this to shall pass

  4. @FAMUAce – so would you be happy to settle for a Civil Union instead of a full marriage? What in your opinion would be needed to differentiate them? Opposite gender? If so, what would be your logical basis for this?

  5. @swiv- Then why can’t we just call it marriage? I guess I am having a really hard time with the this "seperate but (un)equal" classification. Can someone please just give me a good reason why it shouldn’t be marriage?

Leave a Reply

Back to top
%d bloggers like this: