Comments on: Whackos Preparing ‘Marriage Protection Act’

By: Rod

Rod — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 00:57:05 +0000

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.”

By: Rod

Rod — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 00:39:16 +0000

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?

By: a. price

a. price — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 18:42:01 +0000

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

By: pandora

pandora — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 18:22:40 +0000

You do realize you’re arguing with a guy who professes to want government out of our lives. Just sayin’!

By: a. price

a. price — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 18:07:38 +0000

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

By: Mark H

Mark H — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 17:14:45 +0000

a.price, I have been married 3 times, so I guess I can put two of these up for auction on ebay

By: a. price

a. price — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 16:56:01 +0000

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)

By: a. price

a. price — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 16:51:23 +0000

“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)

By: david anderson

david anderson — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 16:42:53 +0000

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.

By: a. price

a. price — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 16:33:13 +0000

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.

By: a. price

a. price — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 16:29:11 +0000

“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

By: david anderson

david anderson — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 16:24:23 +0000

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.

By: Mat Marshall

Mat Marshall — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 15:55:24 +0000

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.

By: Adam and Adam?

Adam and Adam? — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 14:04:59 +0000

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.

By: Donhusseinsquishviti

Donhusseinsquishviti — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 12:43:11 +0000

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