(no subject)

[dwenius]

Isn't it funny how, when things aren't going his way, President Monkey Boy is suddenly all "the definition of marriage should be made by the people -- not by activist judges." Hey, dipshit! If it weren't for activist judges over-ruling the will of the people, you wouldn't be in office right now! Thought we'd forgot, eh?

While I'm here, a few ran^H^H^H salient points:

1. The way to strengthen marriage isn't to amend the fucking Constitution to allow fewer marriages; the way to strengthen marriage is to figure out how to have fewer divorces. This is obvious to anyone who is not a member of Congress.

2. Speaking of which, Google is failing me here: where do I go to get the breakdown of the divorce rate among congresspersons? I'm going to assume that if anything, it is higher than the national average, in which case, we are letting these people set marriage policy why, exactly?

3. You want to kick start the economy? There's 10% of the population, if you believe Kinsey, who are currently NOT contributing to the steady employment of your local caterers, bakers, florists, haberdashers, etc. Make gay marriage legal, and the local economy goes [boing]. The Castro has had an explosion of flower/ring/liquor buying in the last week; this could be happening on a smaller scale all over the country.

4. Back to the will of the people thing...the whole reason we have a representative government, with a judicial branch as a safeguard, is to get these kinds of decisions OUT of the hands of the goddamned people! Jesus, "Bread and Circuses", go look it up! Besides, look at your domestic policy...you HATE "the people". Now you're going to hide behind them? I'm going to go puke THREE TIMES.

Comments

[wisn.livejournal.com]

That's apparently why in addition to a new campaign for a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, Michigan's legislation is currently reviewing The Family and Marriage Preservation Plan, which among other things would require a 27 day cooling off period between applying for a marriage license and getting it.

Couples can shorten the period to three days, and win a $50 state tax credit, if they complete a premarital education program. There would be similar counselling programs for couples contemplating divorce, which by description sound like being locked in a room with somebody shrilling yelling at them to for god's sake think of the children, the children, the children, the children.

How Insulting....

[kernelpanic.livejournal.com]

What did the poor hapless monkeys ever do to deserve being maligned by way of comparison to the schrubster?

[tongodeon.livejournal.com]

1. The way to strengthen marriage even more is to surgically graft spouses to each other like that baby with the two heads, or that other baby with the two bodies and one head. You'll have a pretty strong bond with someone who's sharing your blood supply.

2) This is, of course, a classic Ad Hominem Tu Quoque fallacious argument. There's always the "who would know more about failed marriage than someone who's experienced lots of that kind of failure" argument.

3) Indeed.

4) In this case it unfortunately looks like The People *and* The Judges *and* The Judicial Branch are all against the gay marriage thing. Of course that doesn't mean they're right: but it does make the "represenative government protects the idiots they represent" argument moot when the idiots and the representatives are both on the same page.

[dwenius.livejournal.com]

You've read this in other places by now, perhaps, but in 1967, the NYTimes poll showed 80% of the population was against the concept of interracial marriage. That same year, the Supremes overturned all of the state laws barring the practice (dozens). So congress and the people may be lining up against, but historically that doesn't mean much.

[omarius.livejournal.com]

Being one of those godawful libertarian types, my personal suggestion would be to leave it up to the States and take it out of the hands of the federal govromat altogether. Then hold a referendum in every state.

I'm curious: I haven't heard anything about the Governator's reaction to all this. Is he having conniptions over this, ignoring it, or what? I'd have figure the right wing would be pressuring him to send the CA Nat'l Guard to blockade the SF courthouses or something--yet I haven't heard a peep.

delayed processing...

[dwenius.livejournal.com]

Well, it apparently took Herr Gropenfuhrer about a week to parse what was going down in San Francisco, as he finally came out on the opposing side this morning. He and his associated lackeys are vowing to defend the state law, blah blah blah. I see years of appeals; it should be interesting.

I also keep hearing this straw man argument of "what's to keep people from defining polygamy or group marriages as legal?" Well, what's to keep the states and the feds from defining marriage as being "between two persons", full stop, no restriction on gender, no exemption for pets or trees or any other wack item somebody wants to call a "person".

Of course, I also don't think group marriages should be outlawed. Anyone delud^H^H^H^H^H brave enough to commit to such an arrangement deserves to fail on their own merits. Or succeed, possibly. The main problem with standard-issue Mormon polygamy is that it was so clearly intended as a means of widespread consolidated ownership of women for the purposes of growing the church. Ok I made that up, but you have to admit, a conspiracy of Catholics (or Protestants, or Jews) controlling federal marriage law as a way to maintain some kind of religious majority is much more interesting than the current lame posturing.