Whackos Preparing ‘Marriage Protection Act’
A talkative toucan informs El Somnambulo that Sen. Bob Venables (D-Mars) and the troglodyte caucus are preparing a so-called ‘Marriage Protection Act’ for introduction. It’s not in the system yet, but it already has a number, SB 27 (666 is already reserved). And a synopsis:
“A marriage between a man and a woman is the only legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.”
Not surprisingly, not a single sponsor is from north of the Canal:
Prime: Sen. Venables, Rep. Walls, Hocker, D.Short
Co.: Sen Adams,Bonini,Ennis, Simpson, Rep. Atkins
First, allow El Somnambulo to praise Rep. Atkins for, once again, standing up for the sanctity of traditional marriage. Now, if only his family would learn to obey him…
And, in the interest of objective reporting, Edward R. Bulo will include the request for support verbatim without snarky comment:
I am writing to urge your support for the Delaware Marriage Protection Amendment.
Across the country, the American people have overwhelmingly supported similar measures protecting our shared understanding of marriage as the union of a husband and wife. In 30 out of 30 states where the people have had their say — they have said yes to marriage as the union of a husband and wife.
Recent court decisions in Massachusetts, Connecticut and California show how vulnerable our marriage laws are. Without a state amendment, it’s only a matter of time before activists file a lawsuit seeking to overturn our marriage laws.
Marriage isn’t about bigotry. It’s about bringing together men and women so that their children have the chance to be known and loved by their own mother and father. In a married family, this is normal. Outside of marriage, children seldom receive this birthright.
Our marriage tradition is shared across time, culture, and religion — reflecting the shared wisdom of humanity handed down over millennia.
We urge you to support the Delaware Marriage Protection Amendment. As citizens of Delaware, we need your leadership on this important topic. Marriage is too important to leave to a handful of unaccountable judges.As you enjoy the crocuses and spring flowers bursting forth,
may your heart rejoice in God’s creation reminding us of new life
and ressurection hope.
One would guess that the fundamentalists are behind this. Can’t be sure b/c the Talkative Toucan has developed a case of the dry heaves.
Marriage isn’t about bigotry. It’s about bringing together men and women so that their children have the chance to be known and loved by their own mother and father. In a married family, this is normal. Outside of marriage, children seldom receive this birthright.
I love this phrase – and it always appears in nonsense like this. So, given these words, is a childless couple married?
We really need to stop this. Thanks for bringing it to our attention, Bulo!
My husband and I don’t have children so we’re disrupting God’s plan I guess.
“My husband and I don’t have children so we’re disrupting God’s plan I guess”
Yes you are.. 🙂 I have a couple of my own I’ll gladly rent you.
Henny Youngman said it best, “Take my 16-year-old. Please.”
Making pretend that kids only know their parents if they are married is the bullshit here. And the little brushoff on bigotry is supposed to make the fact that this effort would codify bigotry invisible or something.
Time to say no to these bigots.
I am amazed and embarrassed that both my state senator, Venables, and my Representative, Danny Short, are sponsors on this piece of legislation. They will both have emails from me in their email box shortly.
The first thing is that this legislation is pointless. Gay Marriage is already banned in the Delaware Code.
So, what is the point? Is this just political grandstanding? Venables isn’t up for reelection for another 4 years. Short has no real threat in Seaford. I don’t get it.
I take that back.. it looks like those lines in the code were repealed at one point. I specifically remember seeing it.
no real threat yet
Marriage isn’t about bigotry.
But it is about denying equal rights to people based on who they love.
And we’re supposed to be all nicey-nice to these bigots?
It is too early in the morning to be boiling my blood.
Does anyone sense a little purposeful misdirection as the purpose behind this legislation?
The business management of our State as represented and guided by our Legislature is under horrible pressure economically. In other words, the store is broke. So what’s the best way to handle this fiscal management fiasco? Drum up some moral outrage and maybe the voters will forget about the money.
I live in the same area as Brian with the same representation; unfortunatly, both of these individuals are as safe as could be for as long as they want to be, and this legislation will only reinforce that. This is probably the most conservative part of the state, with those who would vote Democrat politically inactive. This is going to stop me from writing both men about this issue, but it will only frustrate me further that they are unresponsive to some fo their citizens and can easily get away with it.
I hope someone will write a counter-bill granting marriage rights to same-sex couples.
Reis: ‘Bulo sees your logic. But when it comes to Sen. Venables, logic does not apply. No, this is the true believers coming together.
The Beast Who Slumbers is a bit surprised about Simpson being a sponsor, as his district extends into more open-minded areas of eastern Sussex County.
Hmm…I wonder how this will play up, against Schwartzkopf’s HB5?
I am intrigued, though, now this bill has made me realize it. Rep. Schwartzkopf was very key in getting Rep. Atkins re-elected. Rep. Schwartzkopf is fairly well known for his stances for discrimination-free environments to include sexual oritentation, to which I agree and applaud Rep. Schwartzkopf. Rep. Atkins, on the other hand, is well known for his anti-gay stances (I am not saying he wishes ill-will, but I am saying it about protection).
Interesting strategy there, guaranteeing a cancellation of your own vote on an issue that matters deeply to you. Somehow, I don’t think that was the consideration, but it makes me wonder WTF were you thinking to begin with?!?!
Oh, I was planning to break this one, but I was waiting for clearance from the supporters. I knew I should have jumped on it yesterday when we went public, but I was too busy lobbying.
I support this fully. It is common sense and anyone who doesn’t support it shouldn’t be in office.
Dave, does Sussex County get a special exception from this bill vis a vis sheep?
Just wondering.
My name is not Dave. Thanks
I am not from Sussex, but the last time I was down there I found more common sense in one small town than I found in the whole of Wilmington.
The truth is you will see a lot of support from Wilmington and the Odessa-Middletown-Christina-Bear corridor.
Dave-id, I don’t see how this represents “common sense.” Explain how this is logical and necessary. Please. I’m glad the legislature’s conservative elements have solved all of Delaware’s more pressing problems already so that they have time to focus on legislating their own version of morality.
Reis, please,be respectful. There really aren’t that many sheep farms. We much prefer chickens.
Defining what marriage should be for other people is equal common sense.?!?! That’s scandalous actually. I really could not care less what you do, but don’t tell me how to live you fucking maniac. Think about what you’re saying. It’s so ridiculous to the point of being utterly shocking. Also, why shouldn’t reps who disagree be in office exactly?
Of all the stupid things you’ve ever said, I think this one takes the cake. It’s complete nonsense.
All of recorded history has shown us that marriage is an institution between the sexes and the basis for building families. All the wistful social engineering in the world won’t change nature. That is where common sense comes into play. You obviously checked it at the door.
There’s the family argument again. Really, David, why not take this to your obvious conclusion: Married people without children are not really married. Go on, say it.
freakin religion.
MOST people’s religion actually DOES, sadly define marriage.
here is the problem. in a secular government we also have a word called marriage to define what it is when 2 people who allegedly love each other want to spend their lives together.
the perks come in the rights. hospital visitation, cant be compelled to testify, rights after a spouse’s death, yada yada yada.
these people who oppose gay marriage do so because anal sex grosses them out…. i bet these old men love the idea of female supermodels getting it on… but men? EWWWWWWWWWW. They use their religion as an excuse… because it is one, however, this is a land THANK GOD where the “word of God” isn’t necessarily the law. that is why men cant beat their wives when the don’t put out. that is why we ant sell our children or people we capture in battle.
There is more about making sure you dont lift a finger on the Sabbath than how much “God hates fags”, but no. Hateful homophobic holier -than-tho yagoffs like Venables and Short …. I AM SO PISSED OFF!
This “traditional” definition has been imposed by societies, a function of culture, religion, and social engineering more so than common sense. Most of recorded history has included slavery, religious and racial persecution, and social Darwinism as well…..that doesn’t mean it should serve as justification for modern discrimination.
Families today are indeed under threat – from poverty, from a lack of healthcare, from divorce spurred by the stresses of modernity, from many aspects of the failed conservative policy. All of these things indeed threaten families. However, I fail to see how people who are in love choosing to formally commit to each other and possibly raising a family is a threat of any sort.
david, what goes through your mind when thinking about the now-unconstitutional state laws banning “mixed race” marriages? Weren’t these laws passed at one time because the people making the laws felt this was “normal” and “common sense”?
families are under threat from shows like The Bachelor and the fuckin Octomom
fuckin Octomom
Technically, that’s an oxymoron. 😛
You want to know what Traditional Marriage was in the olden times?
It was nothing more than a business merger (businesses being families, in this case). Hell, the participants usually had no say in the matter and if they had feelings of one another at the start, well that’s just circumstantial.
And yeah, religion had nothing to do with it, so I don’t need a minister to call me a groom*. Beeeotch!
* h/t to Pavement.
Families are not under threat. This idea comes from people who actually believe “Ozzie and Harriet” and “Leave It To Beaver” are factual representations of the 1950s.
Getting back to my comment in #14, WTF was Schwartzkopf thinking in propping Atkins who will FOREVER cancel his vote 0n pro-gay-rights legislation?
How is the Octomom a threat to families? It is scientists with out morality that are the threat in that case. The poor woman just wanted children. That is not evil. The fact that someone would listen to a single woman with 6 children who God obviously was hinting that she didn’t need more, was an issue. The fact that the kids don’t have a father is more of an issue. That to me goes back to the gay marriage issue.
She did not ask for 8 children. I haven’t seen one piece of evidence that she insisted to the doctor that she wanted a human litter.
This implanting and creating more than two or three children at a time needs to be banned. You should be cursing the doctor. She is the one trying to be responsible. He just wanted the money.
The Octomom was just living out those wacky CA values. Why condemn her?
I think a better question is why does the Democratic Party continue to bow down to the Dixicrats of Sussex County? That’s baffled me since I’ve become involved in Delaware politics.
But what would then happen with all the frozen humans if they aren’t implanted?*
*-a nod to Pandora’s post yesterday on the Georgia Legislature
“The fact that the kids don’t have a father is more of an issue. That to me goes back to the gay marriage issue. ”
What??? I see no connection here. I agree two parents are better than one – wouldn’t this strengthen the case FOR gay marriage? Two people in a loving relationship raising children…..
Smitty, Pete wanted power. He isn’t about gay rights. That is just an issue from his district. Pete knew that no one from that district would be for special rights distinctions for homosexual behavior. Why not accept that and get a vote for majority leader? It worked.
That is why Pete so freely amend his legislation before it was even finalized. He just wants to put the issue aside, get credit, and move on. That’s ok. He is doing his job.
Comment #20 is the most laughable statement in the history of this blog. It is patently untrue! Polygamy, dowries, arranged marriages, only male initiated divorce, miscegenation prohibitions… God damnit, David, I want you to fucking explain how you could make such a statement as comment #20. We are not obligated to live under the strictures of your Bronze Age superstitions… even as you grossly misstate them.
About that post, Smitty… where were all the pro-lifers? Normally they flock to such a post. Their silence is speaking.
Also notice how David avoided my point in comment #21.
There should be no frozen embryos. The practice of excessive fertilization is an outrage.
MMcKain (edit: and David) – Thanks for picking it up. It was a conversation I was having earlier today. Schwartzkopf is known for supporting gay-rights issues, as quite frankly, should be expected from him, given his platform and his supporters. It was only now, on the heels of this bill from this post that I made the connection of why in the hell did he find Atkins such a great play? Atkins’ history suggests an absolute cancellation of a Schwartzkopf vote on any pro-gay-rights action. If this wasn’t a big part of Schwartzkopf’s platform, I may shrug it off as something among friends, but it is a big part and makes me really wonder, “WTF?!”
Excessive fertilization? Define that please.
Sorry Pandora, I was too busy working. It was a busy day and I had to lobby during my lunch hour. I think we got another vote for marriage from a legislator who previously opposed it. It was a good day. I didn’t see your post. We had a prayer rally at Leg Hall. It is likely that is where we were at.
You know I think that you are terrific for a lib. I would not avoid your post.
More than two or three. You implant more children than can be handled through a normal healthy pregnancy. Selective abortion should be banned except to save the life of the mother –or other children in the case of a severe deformity which would kill the one child any way. This entire process is sickening.
If you want to see the shit really hit the fan, wait till the ultra-conservative section of the ultra-conservatives decide sperm is a living being. Of course, on the up side, Jason won’t have to type one-handed anymore.
“All of recorded history has shown us that marriage is an institution between the sexes and the basis for building families.”
Wrong, as usual. Your beloved Bible is full of stories of rich guys with harems — great one-man, one-woman example there.
And again with the “special rights” horse manure. Please explain which “special rights” homosexuals have.
Calling ignorance religion does not earn it the right of respect.
David, have you known anyone who has gone through IVF? The procedures exist for a reason.
“This entire process is sickening.”
It doesn’t bother me a bit. YOu, on the other hand, I find sickening.
“WTF was Schwarzkopf thinking in propping Atkins who will FOREVER cancel his vote 0n pro-gay-rights legislation?”
My thoughts exactly. I believe Atkins will cancel Schwarzkopf’s vote on other legislation as well. I heard him supporting Atkins on a radio interview. It was illogical and totally unconvincing.
“Excessive fertilization? Define that please.”
I can’t define it, but I was engaged in it from my late teens throughout my mid thirties.
One man and one woman is a marriage between the sexes. One man and 10 women is a marriage between the sexes. Either way produces children and stable families.
Polygamy is a legitimate time honored form of marriage practiced in several nations even today. It is not the best way to build a society. It leaves many men out and shifts family power to the powerful and rich. It causes issues in the stability of a society in the long run and pushes people to immoral activity. Men benefit from women and families. They are more civilized and responsible. A society with unconnected males will become unsafe or militaristic. One man and one woman makes societies more equal. That is a different debate.
It is ok to criticize what I say, but try actually reading what I say.
“Excessive fertilization? Define that please.”
I can’t define it, but I was engaged in it from my late teens throughout my mid thirties.
On the flip side, it does kill your lawn, too. That’s bad.
There’s the family argument again. Really, David, why not take this to your obvious conclusion: Married people without children are not really married. Go on, say it.
I’m serious, David. You need to own these views.
Men benefit from women and families. They are more civilized and responsible.
Now, I hope you expect to be asked to back that up with proof. It is far too easy and very low-hanging fruit to pull up cases of abuse, infidelity, neglect and so on, from BOTH genders in a heterosexual relationship.
david, i was going to list a few dumb things you said… support of polygamy being against research that can cure cancer….
but Christ on a cracker man…. almost every word out of your mouth makes me want to slam my head against my desk. you lobby for a living? for what Rights for Americans with no I.Q?
D. G. I have no issue with arranged marriages if the parties can opt out. It is a cultural issue which is a proven tradition. I don’t see where that is wrong. It still produces stable families and happy people. It works as well as dating if not better.
It is not your way or my way, but that doesn’t make it wrong. The question is does it undermine either human rights or strong families? The evidence seems to be it depends how it is structured or applied. If you take the financial incentive away, families tend to match make better than an individual because they see the forest for the trees. Those cultures tend to have lower divorce rates and more stable families.
I thought that you liberals were in to multiculturalism. Where is your tolerance? These people have 4 or 5 thousand years of tradition. It should be respected though in my opinion not emulated.
Ancient Greece, the cradle of our civilization, had no problem with homosexual relations.
I read what you say. It is what all ignorant “God”-fearing people say. You, sir, are an ignorant man who seeks to apply his personal morality on society under the rubric of the Sky Dad.
Back to my original comment, I’m yet to hear a “common sense” reason for this law to be passed. I’m quite certain the implication that polygamy is preferable to a stable homosexual relationship will not take you too far in your lobbying, though I’m sure the resulting subjugation of women would be a-ok with all too many.
It is not your way or my way, but that doesn’t make it wrong. The question is does it undermine either human rights or strong families? The evidence seems to be it depends how it is structured or applied. If you take the financial incentive away, families tend to match make better than an individual because they see the forest for the trees. Those cultures tend to have lower divorce rates and more stable families.
david do you live in 1878?
Men and Marriage by George Gilder would be a fine place to start Smitty.
I think I just heard a. price banging his head again…arranged marriages? Really? No disrespect, but do you really believe the junk coming out of your mouth or have you just run out of talking points?
No I don’t lobby for a living. Like I said I had to do so on my lunch hour.
David is pro-polygamy and also poly-andry? As long as the opposite sex is involved. Are they allowed to have three-ways in this approved form of marriage?
Denial of marriage to same-sex couples is discrimination, period. The only reasons I ever hear are about children (gays and lesbians can have children as well), “tradition” and the gay-sex-is-icky argument.
As far as IVF goes, David obviously doesn’t understand how it works. What happens is that a woman is hyperstimulated into making many eggs. The eggs are harvested and fertilized with sperm. What you don’t understand is that the hyperstimulation process is very, very expensive and time-consuming. This makes the eggs quite valuable.
The fertilized eggs are then injected back into the woman’s ovary, hopefully resulting in implantation and then pregnancy. As you no doubt know, not all eggs implant so sometimes more tries are needed. That’s why they won’t throw out excess embryos – in case it doesn’t work or if another pregnancy is desired. Added is the fact that some fertilized eggs do not survive the thawing process. Therefore a couple would want to have excess embryos, probably the more the better.
D. G. brought the subject up. As I said, I don’t support it, but as long as it is voluntary, I don’t have a problem with people who feel it is an important part of their culture.
I am tolerant after all.
I understand how IV works. That is why I don’t condone it nor do I condemn it. If done properly, it does no harm and gives couples the children they desire. If done without regard to the embryonic children, it leads to death and disregard of the most helpless of humanity. That I do not support
ONE MORE TIME, DAVID.
Are married people without children really married? Or are they just less married than married couples with children?
As I wrote, polygamy is a poor way to build a society. it hurts men. On the individual level it is not a bad deal. On a societal level it is damaging. That is why I support keeping marriage as between one man and one woman. I want to protect the values and strengths of western society.
To point out that polygamy is a legitimate claim on the structure of marriage is obvious. It is not supporting it. On the individual level, I have no issue with it. My problem is that history has shown that it creates problems in the larger society. We have to build policy based upon all of us not a few of us. That takes me back to my objection of so-called same sex marriage.
If people want something else, that is ok. They can move. I don’t have a problem with that.
Do you promise, Pandora? I don’t intend to address that issue. I don’t see it as a serious one.
I would argue that your belief that blastocysts are people is your religious belief. It certainly isn’t a traditional religious belief, because the people of the Bible didn’t know much about fertilization and implantation.
I’m sure David is ignoring your question Pandora because he knows that if he follows it to the logical conclusion there would be all kinds of restriction on marriage like infertile people would not be able to be married, or post-menopausal women, for example. (Like, would your marriage be dissolved once your kids leave the house and you can’t have any more?) Once you start getting into people who you can’t call icky you really have a hard time with the argument.
RSmitty wrote:
“fuckin Octomom
Technically, that’s an oxymoron.”
Or an idea for a major motion picture. El Somnambulo is starting on his screenplay as we speak.
Paging James Cameron…
On the contrary, it does seem to be what you are implying. I think it is at the very least worthy of discussion.
Nah, I’m a promise breaker. 🙂
So let’s review your and the letter writer’s arguments… (emphasis mine)
1. One man and one woman is a marriage between the sexes. One man and 10 women is a marriage between the sexes. Either way produces children and stable families. (DA)
2. All of recorded history has shown us that marriage is an institution between the sexes and the basis for building families. (DA)
3. Marriage isn’t about bigotry. It’s about bringing together men and women so that their children have the chance to be known and loved by their own mother and father. In a married family, this is normal. Outside of marriage, children seldom receive this birthright. (Letter writer)
You say you won’t address the issue, but as I’ve shown above… you already have. You can’t have it both ways.
I think Larry Flynt has probably already beaten you there ‘Bulo. I read she got an offer to star in a porno, which she turned down.
The question should be: “In a tangible way, how does someone else’s marriage affect your own?”
Without the improvable Meta-argument of “It makes me feel icky”, there isn’t one. So the culture warriors have to fall back on the time-tested, emotional argument trump card – “Think about the kids!”
L-L-Lame!
So David the conservative, the “get government out of our lives” conservative, actually wants to engage in social engineering — just not economic engineering.
As I said, an ignorant man.
Marriage is a contract between two people. Kids are not and have never been required for the contract to be legally binding.
Agreed, Geezer, but we’re not the ones basing our positions on the backs of children. And, I suspect, that if David and others are forced to agree that children do not define a marriage then the foundation of their argument starts to crumble.
What is marriage? Is it not an institution between the sexes to formalize the family bond, further the promotion of dedicated stable relationships, and provide the nucleus for the family? It is the basis of all civilization. Only a fool would tamper with its fundamental structure.
Marriage is not a contract. It is a covenant. It is the bonding of a man and a woman into a new societal unit. If you want some contract, start a business.
“It is not your way or my way, but that doesn’t make it wrong. The question is does it undermine either human rights or strong families?”-DA
This is the question you need to ask yourself, David. This more than anything else you have said PROVES your homophobia.
Oh, I am scared, the name callers have come out.
I guess you think that I have to go hide under my bed when the homosexuals come by. Stop being silly. I don’t have a problem with most homosexuals. They have to live their own lives. I don’t need to live theirs. What I do have a problem with are the extremists who want to reorder society. destroy our most sacred traditions, and shut up anyone who disagrees with them.
Wrong again, David. In a court of law it’s a contract. I really don’t care what it is in your church. We’re talking the law, not your religion.
For many centuries one of our most sacred traditions was the inferiority of the African American. Wanna go back?
Dude, I didn’t call you a name, I diagnosed you.
“They have to live their own lives. I don’t need to live theirs.” DA
There you go again. You are so confused. If you believe what you said, then why is the issue so important to you.
I think it is ridiculous that you can’t take a moderate position on these issues. Support marriage, freedom of speech, freedom of the marketplace, and freedom of religion.
I believe in abolishing the inheritance tax on people who build their wealth together which would benefit gays more than anyone.
I reject anti-sodomy laws. It isn’t the government’s business what you are doing or with whom.
I support the concept of HB 10.
I am for household insurance. It is a public good to allow people who have the money to purchase insurance in the free market for others.
I don’t have a problem with the executive order which forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation for state hiring or government contracts. Gays pay taxes. It is their government too.
I have a big problem with wrecking the family to make people feel good. I don’t want sexual orientation put in the civil rights laws which will be used to persecute people who object to certain flawed lifestyles.
If that makes me homophobic, then I am proud to be so.
According to the state, marriage is indeed a contract — just anyone who has ever been divorced. The state simply does not care about your covenants or your sacraments — it only cares about dissolving the contract. And the contract is really the only thing that the state ought to care about. Leave the sacraments to churches — but the state should not be in the business of telling two adults that they cannot enter into marriage contracts with each other. That does not mean that a church can’t refuse to administer the sacrament, but the state should not stand in the way of people who want to be married.
We all have flawed lifestyles in some way, my friend. Loving someone and being commited to them is not a flaw.
Those who took a moderate position on slavery opposed its spread but ignored it as it existed; they were wrong. Those who took a moderate position on women’s rights believed in free speech, maybe even the vote, but not workplace equality; they were wrong. Those who took a moderate position on civil rights “seperate but equal,” they, too were wrong. I consider myself a “moderate” liberal, but being a moderate does not mean taking principled stands when required by all that is right and reasonable.
I have a big problem with wrecking the family to make people feel good. I don’t want sexual orientation put in the civil rights laws which will be used to persecute people who object to certain flawed lifestyles.
Flawed? Careful, David, you’re proving peoples’ points. And how does gay marriage “wreck” the family?
Also, how do you figure “abolishing the inheritance tax on people who build their wealth together which would benefit gays more than anyone.”
Look, I can’t stop someone from getting married or at least what they fancy to be married. Marry two women. Marry three men. Marry a man and two women. I can’t stop them. That is not the question. The question is what do we recognize. We have no obligation to recognize it because it doesn’t benefit us. It is self indulgent nonsense.
So now your left with the weak argument that if my gay neighbors are allowed to be married, that somehow effects my family. Unbelievable.
Society needs stable families to exist. That is why marriage is so revered in society. The effort to undermine it has nothing to do with rights. It has to do with loony left social engineering.
I’ll see your marriage is revered argument and raise you the divorce rate. Face it, David, heterosexuals are responsible for the state of marriage.
Your arguments are losing ground fast, but, then again, religious arguments tend to do that outside of their houses of worship.
So punish those people who get married, have kids and then get divorced? In what world do you live where these “Stable Families” are the norm. It sure isn’t reality, it has never been any part of this country or western society, so what exactly is your proof of a “stable family” being better for society?
Perhaps David would be happier with the old social engineering that made it illegal for black people and white people to marry.
The law has no business telling couples that they cannot execute marriage contracts with each other. Stable families are made where there are stable people forming them. The contract itself has little to do with it (neither does the sacrament either, given the fact that red state people divorce at a higher rate than blue states).
A family can be stable, healthy, and fuctional and still be homosexual, David. And your statement about it being self-indulgent nonsense forces us to revisit the question of couples who marry but cannot have children…would that, too, fall into your category of “self-indulgent nonsense”?
The divorce rate is a different issue. I don’t think you people have any credibility on the issue. You support no fault divorce; I don’t. You lampoon the return of covenant marriage; I support it. You want to rewrite the very definition of marriage on a whim; I don’t. You opposed the Bush marriage initiative which helped lower the divorce rate by education; I supported it.
The only time you care about divorce is when it happens to gay people.
the last flailings of a drowning man.
So sad.
The divorce rate is not a different issue. It is an indicator not just of the reverence people hold for marriage, but is also a measure of who — exactly — is responsible for the failure of marriage. And at an almost 50% divorce rate, it is pretty clear that not only do Americans not think that marriage is deserving of any real reverence, but that straight people are the only ones damaging the institution of marriage.
So, if my belief system dictates that something is a covenant, and that “something” has been around, socially, way before my religion, what serious argument can anyone make saying that “something” is now under the strict purview of my religious leaders?
Silly.
M. McKain, thanks for picking up my original point and running with it!
Way to take on the loony left! David’s the man!
“Way to take on the loony left! David’s the man!”
Whoo-Hoo!
NY Mets are 2008 World Champs!
Whoo-Hoo! Alternate realities are fun!
Where did you get that “request for support” that you quoted? Its good that you took the name off. I suspect that it was suppose to be a private conversation. Maybe a constituent letter? I sure hope confidential constituent communications are not be posted on the internet.
Two comments and Jorden has yet to add to the discussion.
But he DID drive us up to 100 comments on this posting. That was kind of useful, right? Wasn’t it?
‘Bulo’s first 100-post thread. Break out the tequila!
Wouldn’t that just be considered self-indulgent, M? 😉
Nah, I met my wife on line and we’ve since had a baby, so I think a computer and what we do on it can be a tool of procreation.
And you can call me Mike, btw. I just keep it M. because I had a class blog for my students at one point.
Tequila, well, it is after 12. 😉
¿Tequilla?
Por supuesto!
So, Mike, you’re in one of those real marriages!
The primary point of our existence (biologically speaking) is to procreate. Two males cannot reproduce. Two females cannot reproduce. Nothing can change that fact.
Now some people see marriage tied to this fact and (I believe) is the core reason for their belief that “marriage” is between one man and one woman. I understand why they feel this way but I don’t agree. Two men or two women who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together in a relationship should absolutely be able to do so. Why are we all so hung up on what we call that union? I don’t think anyone is saying that homosexuals shouldn’t be “allowed” to be in that relationship. It seems to me the hang-up is on what we call it. So trivial and silly.
Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with how we define a family. Nothing! It’s demeaning to many people who grew up without a mother or a father or even both due to any number of reasons. And there are many married couples who cannot naturally have children — they are still a family in their own eyes, the eyes of society, and of their God.
Way to go ‘Bulo! Pass the tequila around.
I agree with many of the posters that once the state got involved in marriage it became a legal contract. If marriage is not a church institution anymore, why does the church get any say in our marriage laws? If the church doesn’t like secular marriage perhaps they can invent their own new thing, like “covenant marriages” and promote those to their members.
I find arguments about how marriage is a sacred institution a bunch of bull when the issue of divorce is not raised at all. Marriage is not a sacred institution to most people.
We’re “hung up” on the definition nosy because marriage comes with certain legal benefits, like automatic survivor inheritance, hospital visitation, the right to make decisions on the other’s behalf, etc. These marriage bans deny these rights to couples simply because they are of the same sex.
Once again, UI you show that it is about being self indulgent. In your world, Society doesn’t matter. Family doesn’t matter. It is about what someone can take. The reason those legal benefits exist is to offset the costs of preserving society. Marriage predated government. Government just recognized it.
While not knowing all the reasons of the opposition to gay marriage, here is one argument that should take the steam out of one of the biggest point presented (in opposition):
Legalizing gay marriage will not and can not (without a constitutional amendment against the FIRST amendment) force a church to accept gay marriage nor redefine their religious-based definition of marriage. Civil marriage and religious marriage are in fact different, it just so happens that, in the eye of the law, religious marriage is accepted as a form of civil marriage. Not any place does it stipulate that churches must accept civil marriage. On that, I can tell you for a fact, that there are churches that today refuse to recognize civil marriages between a man and a woman as valid, so there is even further proof that churches WOULD BE UNAFFECTED.
BTW Thanks Jordan, it has been a useful exercise in getting the arguments of these fine folks out in the open. It appears that all they care about are feelings and supposed benefits. It is nothing about responsibility, family, and society. That is the core difference between the cultural conservatives and the cultural liberals (secular progressives). There is no common sense. There is no respect for the totality of human experience. It is all about “my feelings”.
That attitude is one no society can prosper upon.
On that, I can tell you for a fact, that there are churches that today refuse to recognize civil marriages between a man and a woman as valid
Best example is the Catholic Church. If you are Catholic, you can get divorced and remarried by the state, but the Church considers you still married to your first wife. Now that is some hard-core “sanctity of marriage.”
The same argument can be made with slavery, David. Your entire argument is based on your religious belief. If your church doesn’t want to perform gay marriages – fine, but I don’t have to agree with your church or your beliefs. Do you consider homosexuality a sin? Is this the starting point for your argument?
And your classification of UI’s statements are grossly unfair.
So when will you folks support the repeal of no fault divorce if you believe that divorce is devastating the respect for marriage?
No body asked you to be gay, david. If you don’t like it, don’t try it.
So when will you folks support the repeal of no fault divorce if you believe that divorce is devastating the respect for marriage?
Never, because we’re not social conservatives. We have enough work keeping our own marriages healthy without worrying about everybody else’s.
When did I ever mention “Church”, “God”, “religion” or anything like it. I have my beliefs, but you can’t really debate them. You either believe GOD or you don’t. I don’t see the point in this particular context. If you do a philosophical/theological post on marriage, I would be glad to address those issues. I thought this was about legislation.
I’m glad David, that you know so much about “my world.” I don’t see anything in what you’ve written about responsibility or family or society. All I see is you want to remake family and society into your view of what you think it’s supposed to be.
Your position is that letting two consenting adults who love each marry, than society will fail. Did you know that the state with the lowest divorce rate is Massachusetts, a state that allows gay marriage? It sounds like actually having gay marriage helps marriage and family and society.
You, David, are the one who argues about restricting marriage and family.
Hey David A. – why don’t you wrorry about your own marraige rather then mine — why do you feel so threatened by gays and lesbians wanting to marry and the possibility of that maybe ever happening? What real difference does it make to YOU personally if I can marry my partner. It wouldn’t change your life, your kids won’t turn automaticlaly gay, and we will not force you to have a same-sex relationship (we are glad not to count you among our “family” – we don’t need bigots amongst us).
Why do you feel the need to have laws and constitutional amendments that SINGLE OUT a group of people and categorizes them as second-class citizens undeserving of legal and economic protections. You probabaly think of yourself as a christian but, in my opinion, your attitude is nothing but un-christian.
Traditional marriage my a**. Lets go to Genesis — since the Bible has BOTH a new and an old testament and is not a pick and choose “story”.
Jacob made a deal with his uncle Laban to work for him for 7 years in exchange for his daughter Rachel. The uncle gave him instead his other daughter Leah. Jacob was enraged and in exchange for another 7 years of work was ALSO given Rachel (make that two wives now). Leah gave birth to 6 sons and a daughter. Rachel remind childless and because of that gave her female slave Bilhah to Jacob. Bilhah had two sons by Jacob. Leah gave her female slave Zilpah, to Joseph. Zilpah bore him two sons as well. So much for yout “traditional marriage”.
Oh yeah, and my family – marriage or not – is more stable then many straight families that I know.
So again, why would legislation allowing same sex couples to marry have an effect on you personally?
“It is self indulgent nonsense”
So is your morning coffee, the car that looks nice rather then being practical, or many of life’s conveniences…do you want to outlaw them too?
There is no common sense.
That was just wrong.
There are strong cases out there for survivor benefits and insurance benefits and on. The playing field is not level. On one hand, all that needs to happen is to form a civil bond and that should level it, right? Well…NOOOO, because that isn’t allowed. It’s not gaming the system, it’s about allowing two people who love each other as much as my wife and I do to share the same moment as we did on our wedding day and, yes, enjoy the same benefits as we do as a married couple. The last time I checked, THEY ARE JUST AS HUMAN AS I AM!
HOW IS THAT LACKING IN COMMON SENSE?! 👿
I am a pretty happy guy. I guess that is not what you mean.
I am not hurting gay people. I just want to protect the building block of human civilization as we have always known it. It has been weakened by liberals for two generations and I am saying enough. We need to go back to the future if we are to be a better people.
Redw. Read my earlier posts on polygamy. I don’t need to repeat it. I said why it is ok on an individual level but harmful on a societal level. If people want to get together in that way, I can’t stop them, but I don’t have to endorse them.
The same is true of same sex marriage. I have no desire to stop people from getting together and pretending they are married. I just don’t have to endorse it. You are saying that I do. I disagree. Let’s take it to the voters.
Smitty, the playing field shouldn’t be level. They are not providing a societal benefit. The family provides the most fundamental of benefits–the stable continuation of human civilization. Game, set….
I said that I support eliminating an inheritance tax. I support household insurance. I support healthcare power of attorney. I support letting people live their lives. Let’s deregulate.
The problem is not marriage, but government regulation which makes it more difficult for people. It was the left that made inheritance difficult out of envy and greed. It is they who are to blame not the conservatives. Insurance is a market product. Let people buy what they want on the open market. None of those issues have anything to do with marriage.
The tax law and survivor benefits of pensions are a different category. Married people are one unit. They are special legal entity therefore those benefits should pass seamlessly just like it would with a corporation.
David, do you hear yourself? Pretending they are married? Protect the building block of human civilization? Better people?
There’s a whole lotta judgment coming out of you.
And, don’t worry, it will eventually go to the voters, and while there may be more defeats in the short term, gay marriage will prevail. The youth vote will continue to grow, and as it grows gay marriage becomes a more certain reality.
Comment #125. Then let’s get rid of all those instant advantages for married people. Let’s make it so married people have to hire and pay for attorneys to get household healthcare, hospital visitation rights, etc.
I disagree. There will never be enough voters to overturn a constitutional amendment and that is what we shall have. There is a growing social conservative, religious revival among the young people. We have already won the Life argument with them and in most states we have won this one as well. All the loony left’s Daddy’s Roomate type books won’t be able to over come common sense.
You can already visit people in the hospital whether you are married or not. HB 10 will clarify the issue for those Luddites who don’t understand basic human compassion.
Pretend marriages.
Didn’t we pretend Ken and Barbie were married? Look how that turned out. Ken loved his ascots too mush, Barbie kicked him to the curb, and now she’s a tatoo-flaunting cougar. That’s a family unit for ya.
This “get rid of the instant benefit advantage of marriage” is growing on me. I mean, if we aren’t going to afford the same rights to all couples let’s level the playing field.
“I just want to protect the building block of human civilization as we have always known it. It has been weakened by liberals for two generations and I am saying enough. We need to go back to the future if we are to be a better people.”
So are you saying, David, that if the term “marriage”, and the legal benefits that go along with it, is extended to same-sex unions, then marriage between men and women will decline?
Is there any tangible proof of this weakening? Are you saying that other peoples’ marriages are affecting someone else’s in a detrimental way? How? Where? Who?
Here’s a word of advice – Just because the words you put together in your head sounds like a fine argument, it doesn’t mean, necessarily, that it is one.
BTW – look at the great civilizations of antiquity, be it the Greeks, Romans, Chinese, Aztec, Mayan, Egyptian. These building-blocks certainly weren’t marriage and family – it was all about subjugation and pillaging of the conquered, creating a slave-labor culture, and war (to start the process again) – coupled with an ever-increasing understanding of technology.
There is a growing social conservative, religious revival among the young people. We have already won the Life argument with them and in most states we have won this one as well.
This is completely delusional. The only real urgency of codifying this kind of bigotry now is because the Christian right know that young people actually support gay marriage and won’t find this worth their time as adults.
Again, marriage was considered a merger of social, political, and economic titans.
Love and babies were an afterthought.
It was the left that made inheritance difficult out of envy and greed.
This is delusional too. And certainly can’t be backed up.
Yeah, Cass, that comment flies in the face of reality. Reminds me of the end of Animal House where Kevin Bacon’s character is trying to stop the tide of people….with lies, of course.
135 just go back in history and you will see the populists, Marxists, and progressives changed the inheritance laws. It was even a part of their platforms. Even today, who is fighting for inheritance reform and the end of the death tax?
This is not even controversial.
There is no common sense. There is no respect for the totality of human experience. It is all about “my feelings”.
This may be the most delusional of all. And while we note that the only way you can argue this thing is to make liberals the marriage bad guys (which doesn’t explain the Newt Gingriches of your side who ditch their wives awfully quickly or the David Vitters who find their family values in visiting prostitutes). People here are arguing for the rights of everyone, while you would want to codify your bigotry. And arguing for rights for all is not about “feelings”, it is about extending the promise of the Constitution to everyone.
And I note that you’ve never addressed any of the comments re: marriage as contract law or that any changes would not force churches to perform sacraments that they don’t want to do. Your arguments here are that liberals are responsible for destruction of families (not true — ask Mr. Gingrich about that one) — but you have nothing to counter why it is that one group of Americans should be denied full Constitutional rights.
137, that does not count as backing up your statements.
“Codify bigotry”. I am not the one trying to change the state of the law. Your side is the one trying codify a bigotry against the traditional family. I think this name calling stuff is boring. I am through here for now.
As for Constitutional rights, no one has found them except in state constitutions specifically changed to include sexual orientation which is why I oppose the slippery slope of HB5.
All you Pro-Family, Anti-Gay Marriage types live in some sort of fantasy world that if banning gay marriage was set in stone, then all these gay people would give up and turn straight, and produce healthy families.
What the hell are you thinking? How is denying rights to people who quite obviously don’t want to screw the opposite sex going to force them to do so?
You are fighting a zero sum game here. Zero families will be “saved” by this legislation. Zero new children will be created by this legislation.
The only thing you are accomplishing by this is the denial of civil liberties to people who aren’t you. The only reason you want this is because it offends you, because you can’t survive within your own head that somehow people do things you don’t like.
It is high time all of you moral conservatives leave the rest of the world alone, and go back to imposing your morals on people you can control. Stop imposing your morals, and through that, your religion on other people.
David, I see your point, even if all these liberals do not. When I was a kid, I had neighbors who were married. The husband was a nice guy, but he had a bit of a drinking problem. When he was drunk, which was very often, the entire street could hear him and his wife screaming at each other. Made for a nice backdrop while we were out playing wiffle ball in the yard.
This couple, the bedrock of society, had three kids. I’ve lost track of two of them, but their son, seeing the wonderful example set by his parents (to be fair to his mom, she was a very nice lady), married in order to contribute to the betterment of society.
He and his wife loved each other so much that one night, he took a baseball bat and smacked her in the head a few times. She almost died, and he is now doing 30 years in Smyrna. Meanwhile, the lesbian couple with whom I played softball years ago is living together peacefully and blissfully — for over 15 years now — but legally one could not represent the interests of the other in the case of, say, a long-term disability.
So I see your point. Marriage between a man and a woman is always better.
Brian, I respectfully disagree with you on this issue. Seeing your name on the list enticed me to return because you tend to have something valuable to add to any discussion.
First there are no civil rights denied. This issue has nothing to do with civil rights. While Civil rights can be improperly denied to individuals because of their group affiliation, civil rights do not belong to group to do something because a completely different group can do something.
This has nothing to do with civil rights or liberties. The founders would have been in stark disbelief if you tried to tell them redefining marriage had anything to do with civil rights. They understood what marriage was and its purpose.
I disagree that zero families will be saved. There are already studies that point out where marriage is not respected family is weak and children are not created at sustainable levels. Look at the liberal parts of Europe where marriage has been redefined recently and ignored before then as some outdated institution. They are dying for a lack of children.
As for survival, I win no matter what. I am not going anywhere. Traditional values always win or else a society cease to exist and is replaced by one which values them.
How is allowing gay marriage codifying bigotry against so-called traditional families? That’s just delusional.
Children aren’t created at sustainable levels? WTF does that mean? You don’t think overpopulation is a big problem facing the world right now?
Another Mike, I like your thoughtful reply. It is totally misguided, but thoughtful.
For your comparison to accurate, you would have to compare one of the many dysfunctional lesbian relationships with one of the many dysfunctional heterosexual ones. The fact that they get along is not a reason to monkey around with the entire social structure. My best friend and I have been close for 31 years, but he and I aren’t getting married.
I have actually written about solutions to getting people on the happy track and having strong relationships. That is a basic problem which needs to be addressed. It is not part of this debate, but you are right to bring it up. It has to be addressed.
“Traditional values always win or else a society cease to exist and is replaced by one which values them.”
David, what is “traditional”? Weren’t multiple marriages once traditional? Weren’t same-race marriages, or same-faith marriages once traditional?
Traditional values once included public hangings, but they ceased to exist, at least in most societies, and these societies have not been replaced by others that value them.
This has everything to do with liberties.
You don’t want to men to suck dick, so you pass laws denying them the ability to make their lives, and lifestyle easier.
The family thing is a front. It’s all bullshit. people aren’t going to go gay because they now are allowed to marry. Assuming so is ridiculous.
“Hey, Bob, dudes can get married, wanna go blow each other?” It’s NOT going to happen.
You just don’t understand that people who are gay are going to always be gay, and they will not have families whether you pass this law or not.
You don’t understand that your family will not be affected in any way because two guys get married.
You don’t understand that society as a whole will not be affected by two guys doing what they already do now, with a band of metal on their finger and a ceremony.
That’s the only difference.
This is not about survival. if it were… you’d let the gay people get married, so they would rid themselves off the planet by not having children. Instead, your policy of forcing them into loveless marriages will only produce MORE kids with possible gay tendencies.
So, in a way, you are making the problem worse, in your eyes.
U. I. you seem like a walking cliche. There is no over population of humans. That was suppose to have occurred when we reached a billion then 3 billion then 4 billion then 5 billion. In actual practice the lives of people actually improve and fewer people starve. It is the biggest myth in existence. The biggest problem is too little free enterprise and too much socialism.
Dear David,
I really like the way the Republican Party is gearing up these social issues and hope you guys keep it up. Fight, I say. Fight. If there’s anything I can do to help get these social conservative messages out, please let me know. Also, no matter what, please ignore Smitty. He’s talking crazy! 🙂
Sincerely,
Pandora
David,
Tell that to the people in Bangladesh.
Thank you. I may take you up on that when the time is right. I can get you guys pro-marriage t-shirts to support the cause. After all if you think that this is a loser of an issue in spite of all evidence to the contrary, you should make sure that we get our message out.
As for Smitty, he never talks crazy. He is just concerned about people who he feels are being left out. He is a good guy, like you seem to be a good person. You all are just sadly mistaken on this issue. I personally hope that liberals make this the hill they die on. This issue will kill them politically. That is why President Obama hides from it like the plague. It will be the liberals Waterloo.
“Traditional values always win or else a society cease to exist and is replaced by one which values them”
REALLY? I see – so feminism has totally destroyed our society – since women now work, can have bank accounts, can handle money, can wear pants, do not have to be the ones to stay home to raise the kids, can run for president of the US, and they can vote? All those were not traditional values – I believe societies EVOLVE or else they die.
What Bangladesh needs is a healthy dose of tax cuts coupled with Christianity. The people there are wonderful and hardworking. They have what it takes to be successful if they have the right tools.
Their marginal tax rates destroy savings and wealth creation. Too much of their wealth goes to the International Bankers in debt payments. Its economy needs to be addressed. The solution is not pushing it down and keeping it from getting power infrastructure and imposing some global rationing regime on it.
Look it worked for South Korea and Singapore.
😈
What Bangladesh needs is a healthy dose of tax cuts coupled with Christianity.
I’m dying here. LOL! Tax cuts and Christianity!
Um… you were joking, David? Right?
Women have always worked. Read Proverbs 31 in the Bible, who ran the real estate business, the home manufacturing business, the household, and handled the money? There was a narrow window where men tried to keep the new manufacturing and business jobs to themselves, but women were too smart to let it last for long. You can’t blame men for trying because it gave them power that is human nature, but they misused it and women wisely took it back.
Society tends toward balance. A society which utilizes more of the talents of its people towards its own prosperity tend to be stronger. A society which dismisses half of its population will be weaker than one that does not. The free market dictated that we make changes. It is the power of the invisible hand.
No, let me run Bangladesh for 6 years and it will be on the path to prosperity and happiness. Cut taxes and love Jesus. It solves everything. 🙂
I am having too much fun. The truth is that even though I am being a little whimsical to lighten the discussion, the basis of what I am saying is true.
Look at Korea. It was one of the poorest starving backwaters in the world. In 1953 it was split. Half of it went the way of free markets, sensible taxes, and an increasing respect for traditional Christian values and the other half went the way of secular socialism. Which half is one of the most prosperous nations in the world? It happened pretty quickly.
These poor countries need to cut taxes and deregulate. It is the key to global prosperity.
:pandora slits her wrists… goes to hell.
Don’t do it Pandora. I love you. In a non marriage sort of way. 🙂
and somehow gay people would like to love people in a marriage sort of way.
Full circle
Hey! Have you all blocked pingbacks from DP? I cross-referenced this post and nothing here. You may want to reconsider this one…
What Bangladesh needs is a healthy dose of tax cuts coupled with Christianity.
OMG! Thanks, David. I haven’t had that big of a laugh in days. If they don’t have those two things, the terrorists win! I am still laughing.
That’s pretty hilarious, David. Thanks for the laugh.
Welcome, I like that quote myself. I have been waiting to use it for a month. I was studying marginal tax rates in the third world. LOL Now that I have won the day with blazing logic and wit. I will exit stage right (of course). 🙂
You can’t win an argument with a lunatic.
Do. Not. Feed. The. Troll.
What Bangladesh needs is a healthy dose of tax cuts coupled with Christianity.
We have lots extra we can spare.
I addressed that issue in a more serious fashion at stoptaxing and delaware politics. Just visit or click my name. Try getting ahead and starting a new business with a 60 to 65% tax rate on only 7k. It is insane. It is the lunatic tax policies which are killing people in the third world.
“….coupled with Christianity”
Here we go again – Christianity saves everybody – well, except those discriminated against by christians — or those that have been slaughtered in its name.
David Anderson
Please show me where your facts are when you say crap like this:
I just want to protect the building block of human civilization as we have always known it.
Building block? Who are you kidding? There is no such thing. The rest of your mindless banter is even more idiotic.
. It has been weakened by liberals for two generations and I am saying enough. We need to go back to the future if we are to be a better people.
bwwahahahahaaa. Freaking loon
The “whackos” are on this site opposing the “Marriage Protection Act”. Marriage is between one man and one woman no matter if you’re Christian, Muslim, Jewish or whatever.
The solution is a federal “Civil Unions” law that provides equal protection under law for all committed couples regardless of gender. Put “marriage” into this equation and support for full legal rights evaporates.
30 states, with more coming, have passed Marriage Protection Acts. Only 4 more states are needed for the 2/3 requirement to pass a constitional ammendment. Take heed.
Adam and Adam:
If there is any difference between civil unions and marriage, it’s that marriage is at least somewhat religious.
If this is so, then the state shouldn’t recognize male-female marriages. If it’s not so, then there’s no reason to have to make it a civil union.
Actually every state has traditional marriage on the books and almost every state has a law recently passed to insure that it is clear. 30 states have gone as far as a Constitutional amendment in fact every state which has voter initiative passed it even states like Oregon and California. This issue is only highly controversial in the minds of the loony left.
Others may be open to changing it but they understand that the holding of traditional views is a valid proposition. This number includes a number of Gays and Lesbians. They do not stoop to name calling and disrespect. They just make their case and accept the Democratic process.
Personally, I oppose civil unions. I don’t see the point of marriage light, but I respect the views of people who see that as a solution.
“If there is any difference between civil unions and marriage, it’s that marriage is at least somewhat religious.
If this is so, then the state shouldn’t recognize male-female marriages. If it’s not so, then there’s no reason to have to make it a civil union.”
Here fuckin Here. marriage is religious. we separate church and state. problem solved
david,
your case, and the republican case is made SO weak by all the divorces among repukes. yes, democrats get divorced and cheat and all, but we wont tout how sacred marriage is.
if you want ot protect it, FIRST fight for it to once again be about love, and to about the bachelor, or forced unions between 2 teenagers who were dumb and forgot to cover the monkey, or crazy mormon sects who make pre teen girls get raped by 50 year old men.
THOSE are the threats. after every single hetero marriage is true and isn’t a a joke, THAN i will entertain the idea of listening to your homophobic rants. until than shut up and eat your food.
You say that divorce is the great problem, yet you say that you oppose any divorce reform such as revisiting no fault divorce. How can I take you seriously? Look at who pushed the no fault divorce laws. Gloria Steinem and company were the front people not Conservatives. Now even liberals admit that divorce is a huge problem. So why should we listen to your solution of completely changing what marriage is? Your guys were wrong every step of the way and you are wrong now.
The “crazed Mormon sect” is not only not widespread or accepted by society, they were prosecuted. That does not constitute a threat. A threat to the institution can only be a movement which is trying to change it or avoid it.
The co habitation movement is misguided and I hope the case can be made that marriage is better. I don’t believe in any laws against it, but we should have positive incentives for marriage. That is why we should have the tax laws properly designed to encourage people to make the harder commitment and reward them for doing so.
“You say that divorce is the great problem, yet you say that you oppose any divorce reform such as revisiting no fault divorce. ”
I didnt sat that. if you are gonna put words in my mouth or lie about what i said, dont do it RIGHT UNDER MY post.
If people messed up an got married, of course they should get divorced. i just think that rather than focusing on what 2 consenting adults want to do under the sheets, we should focus on making sure that if people decide to get married, it is for the right (sorry, correct reasons)
The bachelor, and Bridezilla, and Newt Gingrich are much bigger threats.
that said, i’m not convinced i ever WANT to get married, so my gay friends can have MY marriage. (if only it worked that way)
a.price, I have been married 3 times, so I guess I can put two of these up for auction on ebay 🙂
let me clarify. i dont have issue with anyone who has been divorced. I may have come off as scornful, and having never been married, i cant speak to any of that.
what i DO know, is that the main complaint against 2 men or 2 women who love each other getting married, is that is “sullies a sacred bond”, when heterosexual marriage is such a joke now adays, MOSTLY because of marriage game shows, that unless republican talking heads can have a divorce rate of zero and all be in happy marriages, they should say boo about anyone else. THATS all i was sayin’
sorry if any of the good people here who have had marriages end took offense to my remarks.. i wasn’t clear enough and i am a horrible deuche nozzle
You do realize you’re arguing with a guy who professes to want government out of our lives. Just sayin’! 🙂
still dont want to come off as scornful of all divorcees. if it weren’t for divorce, my parents would not have met 🙂
that said, you are right. David is a freakin hypocrite
David – you are absolutely full of yourself. the only brains you have are in your ear lobes. you don’t know anything about anything, you have no reasoning of your own, you read and repeat read and repeat, read and repeat, read and repeat – you wear dirty underwear with skid marks, you wear the same socks three days in a row, you have a jungle hanging out of your nostrils, you don’t floss your teeth. you wipe your nose with your hands and dry them on your pants, you pick your nose and eat your boogers. you don’t wash your hands after using the rest room. you have lunch with the likes of Edmond Drood and during the 70’s you were mesmerized with the effect that Charles Manson had on women. Get a life mockingbird. Oh and what really happened in the woods?
One more thing my dear, dear, dear David
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.”