Most Ridiculous Item Of The Day (so far)
on 02/06/2007 at 12:35 PM
This is a direct reaction to the ‘sex is for procreation’ defense of heterosexual marriage (for those who are too spineless to use the Bible, God and morals as reasons). . .
Have to laugh as most of the feminazi bimbettes who just finished their eight years of college education and want to ‘have a career’ will rail at this - much less most would fail the homorons test as the longer the factory sits without being powered up, the longer it takes to work properly. . .if at all.
This is rich - wtf is in the water on the Left Coast? What a waste of time, money and it is sheer stupidity.
Outside of Romans, I do not hear many “social conservatives” using the procreation arguement; yet another lying distortion by those who want people to not think clearly.
Not too surprizing, for the left coast of Washington. East of the Cascades, people often have more sense.
A puckish bit of humor with a sharp point.
Between the Equal Rights Amendment and the 1st Amendment (prohibiting the Gov’t from infringing on religion) I’m a little surprised that this one isn’t being fought in the courts. After all, until recent times, marriage was strictly a religious function, not a state function.
As far as the “activists” who are behind this latest assault - get a life, we’ve got much more important things to deal with.
As another resident of WA, the Peoples Republic of Seattle (which dominates WA State politics)strikes again.
Just a week or two ago, one of our ‘August’ state legislators decided that dogs need to be inside ‘drinking establishments’ if their owner is in incliment weather.
WTF are these people doing? The ‘rats ( Oops, sorry, Democrat Party) have a supermajority in both the house and the senate as well as the chief executive (I will not say governer—in Capital letter prefix or otherwise)
Seattle liberals just passed a ballot initiative that gives tax credits to ‘renewable’ energy resources, but expempted hydropower.
Hmmm, excuse me, but doesn’t it rain and snow here most years quite a bit?
A couple of years ago the Seattle City Council voted to breach all of the dams on the Snake River in Idaho, to help the fishies. What they didn’t do was vote to breach the dams on the Skagit River, the second largest in the state, that they rely on for Seattle City Light’s hydropower. The Skagit River is almost as large as the Snake River.
Total Hypocrisy—as is usual in most liberals. Don’t do as I do, do as I say!
Sorry anon...I will not conceed that what they’re doing is logical. I too am a hostage to the Seattle liberals, and I don’t agree with letting the gov’t sticking its nose into private business.
However, if by private business you are refering to marriage, then I believe our definition of private business is dramatically different. Marriage is not a private affair.
Hypocrisy, abuse of power, lots of names for this kind of b.s. Whether it’s posturing to appear environmentally friendly or posturing to appear “progressive” or liberal. The overreaching power of the state is evident here.
I’ve always wondered how come the Liberals don’t question how much the Republicans paid Gavin Newsom to make an issue out of gay marriage in an election year, probably costing John Kerry the critical votes he needed to defeat George Bush. Before you say that’s ridiculous, think about the other crazy conspiracy theories the Dems and their running dogs have come up with.
Agamemnon, I think we’re going to disagree on this one. What I do or don’t do with my wife, or even if I have a wife is strictly my business. I just don’t see the state having any right or justification in regulating such a personal piece of business. Unless I’ve missed something important, civil marriage didn’t even exist prior to the post Civil War era. A marriage was either blessed by a religious authority or it wasn’t a marriage. If I take my personal business and parade in in the public square, I could see the government having some say about it. However, my private life is just that and I don’t see the government having any right to decide who is and isn’t married. It’s a sacrament between individuals and their higher power.
Precisely Anonymous. You understand my point completely.
Again, since at its core marriage is faith based, the government shouldn’t be dealing with the issue at all. If the government wants to recognize civil unions, then our existing laws governing contracts and nondiscrimination should apply. Just don’t call it a marriage.
