Gay Democrats ask for marital history of GOP legislators (Barf-until-you-can't-barf-no-more alert)

indystar.com ^ | 2/25/04 | Tim Evans

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Claiming divorce -- not same-sex unions -- is undermining the sanctity of marriage, a group of gay Democrats on Monday asked state GOP Chairman Jim Kittle to identify Republican legislators who have been divorced.

The request comes as House Republicans are attempting to force a vote on a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. The amendment -- which Republicans last week called "the most important issue we're dealing with this session" -- was approved by the Senate but has been stalled in the House by Democratic leadership.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Oh, Lord... this is just so desperate and sad, really! LOL! :)

[Archangelsk]

Oh, Lord... this is just so desperate and sad, really!

Actually, what's really sad is the divorce rate in this country. Considering that most marriages now end in divorce, I think this is a legitimate concern that needs to be addressed.

[visualops]

"For sophisticated companies considering where to locate, that's a big issue," he said.

I guess that depends on what one's definition of "sophisticated" is.

[joesbucks]

Boy, you've got that right. Heterosexuals have done a miserable job protecting the sactity of marriage. Doesn't mean that gays should get married, but we've done a pretty poor job.

[longtermmemmory]

Shoot the messenger philosophy.

Ok, lets have the homosexual activists document how many are infected with HIV/aides? How many sex partners?

How many had sex with another same sex partner BEFORE the age of 18? How many were abused.

Lets have congressional hearings about those that left the homosexual lifestyle.

They want marrige repaired? FINE we can do both. Codify one man one woman (AS THE FEDS HAVE DONE TWICE BEFORE* (gasp!)) AND fix divorce law. (fault/paternity fraud etc)


*The two times the feds established a defenition of marriage as one man and one woman was when Utah became a state as a condition of statehood. When the Imigration service rejected multiple wifes of foreign countries with polygamy. Only ONE wife was allowed to the ONE husband for immigration puposes. Both had the Fed defining marriage as ONE man and ONE woman. Not the states, the feds. There is precidence.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Considering that most marriages now end in divorce, I think this is a legitimate concern that needs to be addressed.

False logic. The fact that Group "A" (heterosexuals) may or may not have done/be doing everything possible to strengthen the marriage compact, themselves, in no way, shape or form leads sensibly to the conclusion that Group "B" (homosexuals) ought to be allowed to do even greater violence to said institution.

[longtermmemmory]

Actually its not as bad as advertised? What! why yes.

boy is ti late.

Here's the deal. If you factor in people who divorce and then MARRY THE SAME PERSON AGAIN the adjusted actual divorce rate drops to 40 percent. Thus 60% of marital relationships succeed OVER TIME. This is from ann coulter. I believe the actual number is around 62%.

I personally know of two couples who did this "divorced ooops" forgive me remariage.

[Democratshavenobrains]

"We will not be issuing a response to this," Kim Preston, press secretary for the Indiana Republican Party, told The Indianapolis Star.

This is why I am fearful that Republicans won't do well this election. Do the Democrats EVER give up a chance to bash the other side?

[trebb]

Actually, what's really sad is the divorce rate in this country. Considering that most marriages now end in divorce, I think this is a legitimate concern that needs to be addressed

Perhaps, but one should consider that one of the big contributors to the divorce rate is the degradation of society as a whole - a direct result of the "liberal" agenda that gave us disposable babies, free love, homosexual advocacy in schools, homosexual marriage, etc., is the same agenda that is bent on destroying the family as a unit. The Democratic party really does have an agenda to put us all under its control and the more they can destroy the family unit and degenerate society as a whole, the closer they get.

[Salvey]

So...if allowed to marry, homosexuals won't divorce?

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

So...if allowed to marry, homosexuals won't divorce?

Of course not, silly. Homosexuals are blameless, holy creatures. Like cows, in India. :)

[longtermmemmory]

Why should they respond to this?

It has all the validity of Mtv finding out if a candidate has boxers or briefs.

Ignoring the survey IS the proper response. Give it no credence, just circular file it. Zero response gives them nothing to counter or work with.

Sometimes you have to bend like the willow, rather than stand like a oak. The determination is tricky but with practice, agrivating as heck to the enemy.

[zygoat]

Nah, lets start with the dims' divorce records. First up- John F'ing Kerry.

[happygrl]

Thanks for the long term memeory that you've provided. You weren't actually around when Utah was admitted to the Union, were you ?

Seriously, the points you've raised about the quality of homosexual's relationships, and their fidelity should be applied and put this entire travesty to rest.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Nah, lets start with the dims' divorce records. First up- John F'ing Kerry.

... and let's not forget to scrutinize, in microscopic detail, the marital records of 'Rat ex-presidents guilty of serial adultery (Flowers, Lewinski, etcetera) AND, in all likelihood, brutal rape (Broaddrick), as well! Fun, fun -- ! :)

[realwoman]

There's that word again, INCLUSIVE. I HATE that word!!!!

[PROUDAMREP]

Surprising that a rev says it is an ecomomic issue? Judas and his thirty pieces of silver! Anarchy is gaining ground with this issue.

[Evil Inc]

Gays and women share an inability to use logic.

[Evil Inc]

"Surprising that a rev says it is an ecomomic issue?"

Same argument that justifies women murdering their unborn. Its just an economic problem. Unless you are the baby.

[HitmanLV]

You are right, but for the wrong reason.

The high divorce rate is a problem that should be addressed. The marital history of 535 legislators isn't particularly probative of that, however.

A person can take marriage very seriously and be saddled with a spouse who doesn't take it as seriously, for example. People also change - maybe they start out taking it seriously and then their behavior gets erratic, unreliable, or intolerable.

I have never been married though I hope to some day - I also hope to never get divorced, but if for example I was married three times - the first ended in divorce after 8 years of wedded bliss after my spouse succumbed to drug addiction (which I tried to address in the 7th and 8th years or marriage, unsucessfully).

Say then my second marriage ends after 6 years of wedded bliss when, for poorly thought out reasons, horniness, obsession, bad judgment, or whatever, my spouse decides to have an extramarital affair with some knucklehead she met at the gym. After being busted, she admits her bad behavior and claims she still loves me, but I make the rational decision that I can't trust her and send her packing.

In each case the divorces are handled quietly and neither moral shortcoming on the part of my spouses is made very public. Everybody involved (me, spouse 1, spouse 2) agrees that it is best that way.

Say then I am now in my early 50s and marry a lovely woman in her early 30s, a 20 year age difference, not so big really though some folks will invariably disparage her as a 'trophy wife' arrangement, though in fact it could be the most meaningful relationship I have ever had. We ramain happily and loyally married for 20 years.

Now I am a legislator in the house of representatives - I am in my early 70s, she in her early 50s, we have had a wonderful marriage and have three children.

I don't see how the fact that I have two divorces is particularly probative of my opinion on the appropriate role of marriage in our culture.

Granted situations like these tend to not be so lopsided (usually there is enough responsibility to go around), but it's certainly possible. It wouldn't be hard for someone with an axe to grind to quickly characterize me as a shallow guy who tires of women quickly, dumps them, always seeking a sleeker, younger model.

Stuff like this isn't really probative of one's opinion on the same-sex marriage ban, nor does it necessarily demonstrate one's disrespect for the sancity of marriage. One does not necessarily follow the other.