Bob Corker Devolves on Same-Sex Marriage

“Devolve:  to degenerate or deteriorate gradually; to change gradually for the worse; decline; deteriorate.”

Bob Corker Same Sex BenefitsTen years ago Bob Corker, former Chattanooga Mayor, was meeting with his staff and advisors to formulate a strategy that would enable him to move from local politics to one of the highest profile stages in the nation.  As Bob met with his team they discussed policy issues, formulated strategies, and staked out the positions he sensed would enable him to prevail in his goal to win the position he so strongly coveted: US Senator from Tennessee. 

Bob Corker Website on Marriage 2006

Bob Corker’s 2006 Website

While one cannot begin to know the most intimate thoughts of Mr. Corker in 2006, we can review his candidate website to determine what he claimed to believe.  One such position which Mr. Corker asserted as his own, was his support for the “sanctity of marriage,” as he heralded, “we must preserve traditional marriage.” On the same website page, Bob promised to “support legislation protecting traditional marriage.”

As a reminder for Bob Corker and the rest of us in these rapidly changing times of what traditional marriage is, it is the union of one man and one woman in matrimony (for life).  Any other relationship or union is simply a pseudo/marriage.  

Fast forward to 2015, ten years after those early days when Mr. Corker’s strategies and positions were promoted to insure a win for the former mayor of Chattanooga. Unfortunately we now see the new Bob Corker emerging.  I would suggest we are seeing a devolving of Mr. Corker’s earlier staked out position regarding “same-sex marriage.”  

As reported by today“Eleven Senate Republicans vote for benefits for married same-sex couples.”  One of those eleven Senators who joined with all of the Senate Democrats was Bob Corker.  Yes, the Bob who strategically asserted in 2006 during his first run for Senate that he would “preserve traditional marriage,” while vowing to “support legislation protecting traditional marriage.” Just this week, however, Bob voted to extend benefits to same-sex couples, benefits that were previously reserved for traditional marriage (one man plus one woman).  

And so we see just another politician devolving on one of his supposed “core” beliefs. Although we cannot look into a person’s heart or mind, this week’s actions by Bob Corker does cause one to pause and wonder.  Were the voters just played?  Were they just used?  Were they just told what a politician knew they wanted to hear?  Or did Bob Corker just simply devolve in his views on marriage?  

There are words, and then there are deeds.  If you want to know what a man really believes, don’t merely listen to his words; watch his deeds.  In the case of a politician, watch his votes, which will reveal what is in the heart.  And in this case it appears Mr. Corker has made the leap, jumped the fence, flipped and flopped.  

No longer can Bob honestly say he “supports traditional marriage” or he will “preserve traditional marriage” because just this week he supported same-sex pseudo/marriages. He has contradicted himself.

So, sadly we see that Mr. Corker appears to be just another politician.  Words mean oh so little when it comes to a professional politician.  It reminds me of the song we hear so often at sporting events, “Another One Bites the Dust.”


PostScript:  For those who will miss the point here and will simply decry this piece as a bigoted, homophobic article, let me suggest that, before you do so, think about what you are saying.  First, if one can be called a homophobe because he believe that marriage is between one man and woman, then he is in good company, given that God designed marriage to be such.  Secondly, if one believes that raising a child with a father and mother is not only God-designed but is also the best way to do so, one cannot be bigoted. On the contrary, such a marriage is in the best interest of the child.  Finally, one must consider that anyone who condones or promotes the idea of raising a child in a same-sex “marriage” may himself be bigoted because he is depriving the child raised in that union of a father or mother.  Selah.