Wednesday, February 9, 2011

The Party of Family Values Strikes Again...

So, it looks like another member of the Republican Party got caught cheating on his wife and kids. Awesome work. Are you going to tell me that the sanctity of marriage is under threat by gay people who actually want to get married and spend the rest of their lives together? And this guy is saying that marriage should be protected because that is his "party line"? You have got to be kidding me...

This is PRECISELY why I believe that marriage is between two people and that politicizing it is horseshit. This guy ruins the argument for Republicans who pretend for a second that this isn't a religious issue. Which, by the way, should have ZERO bearing on our laws regarding gay marriage...


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41498568/ns/politics-capitol_hill/?GT1=43001

5 comments:

Mat L said...

According to the article, he never actually cheated on his wife. Of course we both know that was more than likely his intent. But the fact is, he didn’t.

It really doesn’t matter whether a D or an R cheats on his wife, even if you believe that D party to be the amoral party. It’s the breaking of a covenant with their wife that they claimed they would not break.

With regard to gay marriage. The homosexual agenda is not about equal rights, they already have equal rights under the family code it’s just not called marriage its called domestic partnership. It’s an attempt to somehow legitimize what is abnormal. And its an attempt to force 97% of the population to kowtow to the wants of 3% of the population.

Jim said...

I actually believe that everything shoul be a domestic partnership. You want a marriage, go to a church. The legal code should reflect only the legal parts of the relationship/partnership not any religious jargon. Yeah and this x-legislator is a clown.

Mat L said...

Jim
Marriage is a contract and that is what the family code regulates. Brothers can’t marry sisters, nor fathers daughters ect. There is nothing religious about.

The Blunt Matt said...

But it's not a full equal right if you don't call it the same thing is it? And just because only 3% of the population is gay, does not mean that 97% of the rest can deny them what they think is abnormal.

We have these issues from time to time and gay marriage is just the most recent one.

Up until 50 years ago, it was against the law for a white person to marry a black person. Where do we want to draw those lines?

Mat L said...

Matt
Sure they have equal rights, the section they are addressed within the family code has no relevance. Family code section 297 has no more rights nor less rights than family code section 295 just because each are under a different section. Indian marriages and Indian children are addressed under a different section of the code, does that mean they are being denied the same rights?

It can be argued that family code section 297 discriminates against me because my wife and I are not the same sex nor older than 62, which is a requirement for domestic partner registration.

One reason the code must address each one separately. A different sex couple is commonly referred to as bride and groom on the marriage license. Whereas a same sex couple would be referred to simply as party “A” and party “B”. Even though we all know even in a same sex relationship one plays the role of the woman while the other plays the role of the man. Why a gay couple still plays those very traditional roles, is rather ironic.