Ensign Affair = 10,000 Same Sex Marriage Licenses
Another Republican in the news for a tawdry affair. This one a retread:
In acknowledging the affair [last June], Mr. Ensign cast it as a personal transgression, not a professional one. But an examination of his conduct shows that in trying to clean up the mess from the illicit relationship and distance himself from the Hamptons, he entangled political supporters, staff members and Senate colleagues, some of whom say they now feel he betrayed them.
This major NYTimes investigation goes on for nearly 4,000 words. A synopsis. Some web discussion. A Dan Savage reader proposes (apparently before the news of the moment):
Go ahead and ban gay marriage by Constitutional amendment. BUT, add this proviso: Every time an elected Republican politician in America is caught having an affair, 1,000 gay marriage licenses are issued. For politicians at the federal level, make it 5,000. And if the affair is with a person of the same sex or if money is involved, double the number of licenses (2,000 for local and state, 10,000 for federal elected office holders). By my loose estimate, that should generate a healthy 20-50 thousand gay marriages a year—EASY—and the Republicans will have no one to blame but themselves and their leaders. All those marrying gay folks could toast the cheating hypocrite who won them their marriage rights at their reception, which, I don’t know, sort of brings the two sides together in a way, too.
The idea came to me when I was reading this story, about a local family-values Republican who apparently got some city contractors to buy a car for his mistress (money was involved: 2000 gays would be legally married tomorrow in my system).
10,000 for Ensign. That’s 200 per state. For congressional offenders let’s apportion by district.
15 Responses to “Ensign Affair = 10,000 Same Sex Marriage Licenses”
Why not let another 50,000 gay couples marry every time the Republicans nominate another divorcee for President. Certainly promoting divorce is as bad or worse for traditional marriage as their promotion of adultery.
Excellent idea!
How can we get it implemented? I'm on board.
How about every time another elected or appointed Democrat is caught cheating on their taxes or engaging in fraud the American public gets another 5% tax decrease?
Hey! I'm on board too!
Just for different reasons. LOL
If all of you liberals would become gay and have a civil union, then liberals would be extinct in a generation!
Not really, Jeff. Childbearing is a contractual arrangement. Two men can just ask a surrogate mom, perhaps a lesbian, to bear their child. Ah, life used to be so simple.
Not really, Jeff, because 1) people don't “become” gay suddenly in mid-life by virtue of a “decision,” and B) children do not always follow the patterns of their parents.
I never know whether reason B is something to celebrate or worry about…
Plus, that's pretty darn hateful, Jefferson Davis. You'd like to see people who think differently from you extinct, by your own admission.
“BUT, add this proviso: Every time an elected Republican politician in America is caught having an affair…”
Why just Republicans, make it *any* politician and I'll be on board.
AR: same with your idea.
JD: Your homophobia is showing.
Extreme federal down-sizing is long overdue. However, because so many overaged children demand that Washington be their surrogate parent as well as family substitute, we won't see this, so why not be consistent and do something else that's appropriate given these conditions? Why can't we shrink the size of state governments, go immediately everywhere to a unicameral legislature (lay off half of the legislators and all their sub-bureaucrats!) and to a part-time legislature, as someone smarter here in Michigan suggested on the radio yesterday, for example? (If the role of states is merely to be that of mere districts, not even provinces, there's no reason for retaining engorged Blue Nation state and municipal governments — municipalities obviously should have been consolidated several years ago.)
tell me what you'd cut and how much it would save.
I think the Republican part of that proviso may have to do with the perception (which may reflect reality) that Republicans are more likely to support anti-gay policies. I'd extend the proviso to include any politician where there's proof that he or she supported anti-gay policies.
Not at all, brother. I love ALL Americans, no matter their beliefs or choices.
It was a joke based upon the article.
Like most liberals I meet, you've gotta lighten up and stop being offended by everything.
I am not politically correct – never will be. If I have an issue between the races, I discuss race with a person of another race. Likewise for just about everything else.
Once you read more of my posts, you'll realize that I have nothing but love in my heart for my fellow Americans.
By the way….. Anti-gay policies. That's interesting.
The only thing I'm interested in is preventing legislation that forces me to celebrate any sort of lifestyle choice out there. I personally do not care what people do in there own bedrooms. That's THEIR business. Just don't try to portray that activity as “normal” to my children in school or on television. That is a subversive tactic, and it's wrong. I have taught my children to love homosexuals, but to never condone their behavior.
And to Rambie:
What makes you think I have a fear of homosexuals (homo-phobia)?
I'm not afraid of anyone.
My point was perhaps made a little inelegantly. It is certain that divorce is much more destructive to traditional marriage than same sex marriage. Yet, our would be moral overseers seemingly have become comfortable enough with divorce that since Ford every man they have nominated for president not named Bush was divorced.
Call me old fashioned. When I was training to be a Naval officer in the late 60's we were told a divorce would effectively end our careers. A Naval officer, we were told, took three solemn oaths in his lifetime; to his country, to his God and to his wife. To fail to uphold any of the three would call into question his ability to uphold the other two. Divorce was alright for civilians, but we had to answer to a higher calling.
If there was less acceptance of divorce in society, then I believe there would be less divorce. Considering divorce as a negative when selecting the men and women who would be our leaders would help. I believe there is a moral component to leadership. It is better if more of this is by example and not just talk.
The main argument against same sex marriage is that it causes harm to traditional marriage. Harm that, for some reason, cannot quite be articulated. I just wanted to point out the widespread acceptance of divorce, which completely destroys traditional marriage, undercuts the harm to traditional marriage argument against same sex marriage.
Same sex marriage is a civil rights issue pure and simple. As long as society, though the agency of government, advances marriage by granting it privilege then it must make marriage available on an equal basis to law abiding citizens.
This is a civil libertarian position, not a liberal one.
First off, let me say hello, SIR.
I'm on the enlisted end of the United States Navy.
You've made your point eloquently. As I alluded to before, I agree that people should be allowed to unite in civil union and should be allowed all survivorship, health insurance benefits that normal marriages enjoy. I've never refuted that. That's a legal issue. Even if you leave the homosexuality out of it and two people want to enter into that sort of legal arrangement, it should be allowed. I do have an issue with the symantics of calling it “marriage” since that is a term literally meaning “tribut to mother” from judao-christian roots.
Divorce is, indeed, a negative. And it should reflect on the leaders we choose. Amen to that.
The main issue I have is of the complete moral fiber of the nation. It is breaking apart. One of the main reasons for it is the abondonment of God at the center of it all as the founding fathers prescribed. That's not saying an adoption of a particular religion, just keeping the Creator, God, Jehovah, Allah (etc) at the center of government. That's the unitarian concept the was the basis of the Constitution, according to its writers and signatories.
The other is the total lack of accountability where no one takes responsibility for their own actions or failures. This happens with divorce, as most are salvagable. People, instead, just quit and do not wish to work it out. I'm not talking about infidelity or abuse cases, just the “irreconcilable differences” cases which are the majority.
I too, have a big libertarian streak in my veins. Libertarianism is one place conservatives and liberals can actually meet with little tension.