El Somnambulo on Delaware Liberal announces that Bob Venables and others are preparing to propose a Marriage Protection Act: SB 27… This will limit marriage to a relationship between a man and a women..
Once again, Bob and his group are more worried about protecting their own assholes, than they are about the needs of their constituents…
Their priorities are ass backwards… When you can show me protection all children abused in heterosexual marriages, when you can show me protection for all women beaten on a regular bases in heterosexual messages, when you can show me a plummeting divorce rate especially in heterosexual marriages, then heterosexual marriage might sound like an institution worthy of protection…
But it until then, in their twisted moralism, they are serving to protect child abuse, wife beating, and painful divorce ….
Living in their cultist enclaves may make them unaware of how the rest of the world lives.. We think it is time they stop worrying about other people’s vaginas and assholes and instead focus ….. on helping people.
lol.
kavips 
21 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 18, 2009 at 7:55 am
Shirley
Once this bill is introduced I will definitely write my Senator (Cloutier) in opposition.
Egad, don’t they have more important things to worry about?
March 18, 2009 at 10:00 am
Steve Newton
kavips
You are killing me.
protecting their own assholes in a story about gay marriage….
ROFL
can’t breathe, must spit coca-cola through nose….
March 18, 2009 at 10:51 am
Kilroy
Somehow I think Venables position relates to money and special interest! If gays were allowed to be legally married their spouse would be entitled to social security benefits, employer paid healthcare, retirement benefits designated for surviving spouse and even auto insurance. Auto insurance you say? Currently gay couples must have individual policies and if married one policy give 2nd car discount. Also, insurance rates I believe are a bit lower for married individuals. Surely if there were no financial impact it wouldn’t be such a big deal!
Delaware really needs to loosen up! No I am not gay just stupid!
March 18, 2009 at 4:35 pm
pandora
While I agree with Kilroy’s financial assessment, there’s more to this. These laws are all about establishing Republican street cred – they are really gearing up for the social wars. This is what they mean when they talk about moving further to the Right. IMO, they are in serious danger of moving Right off a cliff!
March 19, 2009 at 8:56 am
Davidlanderson
Marriage is between the sexes not among the sexes. No amount of political correct fantasy can change it.
I think it is wrong that you would assign a motive of not caring about the constituents to Senator Venables. He is introducing it because a number of his constituents and other concerned citizens asked him to do so. I am one who is part of this movement and very proud of my friend for standing on his principles in spite of the haters who would attack him.
This should not be controversial. It is just backing current law. There is no change involved.
March 19, 2009 at 9:23 am
kavips
Dave,
Allow me to point out the fallacy of your argument. You begin with this statement and build your whole argument upon it.. If that statement is false, then so must be your argument…
Marriage is between the sexes not among the sexes. Proof? Define marriage…
And that is the problem with conservative thinking. It comes from an internal opinion and and not a fact… It is simply another version of “thinking the world is flat”; “thinking the cosmos revolves around earth”; “thinking the world was created in 4500 BC”; “thinking genes blended together”; “thinking everything was created intact as we now find it”;” thinking that the moon is made of green cheese”.
All these had at the core of their arguments, “it just has to be that way; look around you”.. But… all those ways are laughed at today and scoffed as being simple…..
Your argument has the underpinning of only one fact. It is wrong because “you” say so… That is indisputable. But it then begs the next question: who are “you” to make that choice for the rest of us?
Facts say otherwise… Facts say people can love each other of the same sex. Facts say they can live long lives together in happiness. Facts say they can raise children in loving environments. Facts say heterosexual marriages devastate both children and spouses when they go wrong…
All I did was point out that the act of having an adopted child by gays become a asset to society, was more beneficial to society than having a heterosexual male sodomize his children… simply because he can…
That is a fact… It is a fact you will have to address and overcome if the “sanctity” of marriage is ever to have meaning….
Its an uphill battle, and only those cloistered in Simple Town…. can fail to see its uselessness……
You are correct… There is no controversy. Especially when one looks at the “facts” There is just stupidity on the part of those proposing this waste of people’s time….
March 19, 2009 at 10:44 am
David Anderson
The statement is the definiton of marriage. It hasn’t changed for all of written history and before. It is the height of a liberal lunacy to pretend that marriage doesn’t have an accepted definition both here and around the world. I don’t need to define marriage. The civilization has done that long ago. That is the flaw in the liberal mindset. You act as if you are qualified to redefine such basic precepts. You are not.
Nothing is more fundamental than the family. You can do without government, but not without the family. How is it a waste of time to discuss such important issues? I don’t see you complaining that all of these slight revisions to animal protection in the GA this year are a waste of time even though they will do no one any good and will not additionally protect animals. Some may even interfere in the fine care some Kennels give. Yet I don’t hear condemnations that we are wasting time. It is only when someone puts a cog in the liberal agenda that time is wasted. The Gay lobby wants to waste our time with a boat load of bills. Is that condemned? (I think that people wanting to have their day is not really a waste of time even if the HB 5 bill really doesn’t address any widespread issue in Delaware, but by the same standard it has to be a “waste” .)
27 is necessary because of the implications of MA. It is made an issue because the Gay lobby wants to waste our time redefining marriage. We have an answer. No.
Are you wasting time lampooning fine men who are doing their job.
March 19, 2009 at 10:52 am
kilroy
Davidlanderson
“This should not be controversial. It is just backing current law. There is no change involved.”
Back in the day the law prohibited blacks and whites from marrying! Prohibited black students to ride buses with white students and supported segregation. Are the rights of blacks greater than gays? The moral issues surrounding gay marriages seem to be rooted in religious beliefs and opinions about nature itself. To impose religious beliefs directly or indirectly in the decision of government compromises the separation of church and state. Furthermore, civil marriages themselves are immoral in the eyes of religions such as Catholic.
Were the rights of blacks and women such a moral issue to not “just backing current law” of the time? Human rights and civil liberties should not be denied. If the state refuses to perform civil marriages so be it however, the state should recognize marriages perform by churches even if the church was an atheist church. However, the law should recognize marriages by the church as legal as the current law allows.
Yea, yea what next? Mike Matthews if want to marry a chicken that would be classified as cruelty to animals.
There are far more moral issues impacting children in public schools that are of greater damage to society than gay marriages. We are the keeper of the glorious garden and not question God’s children no matter of color, sex or sexual preference. Dave. I met God and Jesus and they ask that we only be judgmental of the judgmental. Don’t worry Dave, I’ll be waiting at the Pearly Gates and may sure you get a free pass. God came to me at a young and gave me a choice between a brain beyond a GED of a heart full of passion. God did tell me his only regrets were in his creation of school boards. My response was, that was a no-brainer big fellow!
March 19, 2009 at 11:01 am
kilroy
David Anderson
“The Gay lobby wants to waste our time with a boat load of bills.”
” I: — “There they go again. Always finding fault; always carping, criticizing, nit-picking. Who do they think they are, anyway? Why do they think they’re a cut above everyone else, not to say flawless paragons of perfection?”
“Who are these people? Who are these folk who think themselves more virtuous than most, as eager to find fault as a neurotic housekeeper is to find a piece of lint on a neighbour’s carpet? Who are these people who build themselves up only by tearing others down? They appear to have less compassion than a stone has water. They seem to have no understanding of life’s complexities, of how many shades of grey there really are, of how difficult it is to sort all of this out.”
” Make no mistake. These people do exist. Jesus spoke of them himself. He cautioned his disciples against becoming like them. “My followers,” he insisted, “must never be found trying to remove a dust-speck from someone else’s eye when a pine tree is sticking out of theirs. What’s more,” continues Jesus, “it would be utterly foolish for you, my disciples, to be carping nit-pickers, because the measure you give will be the measure you get.” In other words, those who coldly, callously fault others are going to get the same treatment themselves.”
March 19, 2009 at 11:10 am
Steve Newton
Mike Matthews wants to marry a chicken? Does this mean he has lost his obsession for the Fair Lady O-Donnell?
Seriously, kavips, trying to engage David on the issue of historical fact regarding marriage and family structure is useless. On this issue (and, trust me, I have tilted at this windmill on multiple occasions), David holds firmly to his dictum that if he repeats a declarative sentence enough times, that regardless of the evidence produced from historical and sociological data, it will turn into the truth.
Here, if you have the time, is the result of my earlier interchange with him in which I pointed out multiple historical examples of non-Western marital and family structures, and his inability to grasp them.
http://delawarelibertarian.blogspot.com/2008/05/few-disturbing-historical-facts-about.html
March 19, 2009 at 11:23 am
kilroy
Steve Newton, “Mike Matthews wants to marry a chicken? Does this mean he has lost his obsession for the Fair Lady O-Donnell?”
Professor, sometimes you need to adapt those critical thinking skills to the subspecies level like that of Gilligan aka Kilroy. O’Donnell is of the chicken species! Can’t you tell by the way she pecks in her own GOP shit! Then she flaps her wings as if she can actually fly like an eagle.
“David holds firmly to his dictum that if he repeats a declarative sentence enough times, that regardless of the evidence produced from historical and sociological data, it will turn into the truth.”
In other words you are saying if he has to piss and holds his dick long enough his head will explode! Dave, just a joke as I couldn’t resist!
March 19, 2009 at 12:52 pm
kavips
LOL Did you mean to say David holds firmly to his dictum?
L O L
March 19, 2009 at 12:55 pm
kavips
And Steve, it is not so much to engage David to change his mind, that is something I would not do…
It it to use that engagement to bring both arguments to the forefront so others seeing them played against each other, can then make proper and correct decisions…
March 19, 2009 at 1:20 pm
kilroy
kavips
“ It it to use that engagement to bring both arguments to the forefront so others seeing them played against each other, can then make proper and correct decisions…”
I agree but the correct decision is to support civil unions. (smile) One thing about David Anderson he does engage with full heart and passion! Now only if we can shake that Republican out of him!
March 19, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Steve Newton
kilroy
Do you plan to shake him so hard it comes out through his dictum?
…slinks away…
March 19, 2009 at 3:02 pm
kilroy
“kilroy
Do you plan to shake him so hard it comes out through his dictum?”
No I was thinking more out his aphorism!
March 19, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Brian Shields
The statement is the definiton of marriage. It hasn’t changed for all of written history and before.
It changed when blacks weren’t legally able to marry whites.
The bestiality thing has legitimate health concerns. The incest thing has legitimate mental health, welfare, and consent concerns.
Gay marriage does not have these concerns. Their relationships are just as physically and mentally healthy as heterosexual ones.
March 21, 2009 at 12:23 pm
kavips
One gem that was missed that I think needs highlighted came from Kilroy… Since it had nothing to do with sex, it got overlooked…. Here it is:
God did tell me his only regrets were in his creation of school boards. My response was, that was a no-brainer big fellow!
And back to the gutter:
Brian, are you saying moralists should condom bestiality? lol
March 21, 2009 at 12:47 pm
kavips
And David:
You said:
It is the height of a liberal lunacy to pretend that marriage doesn’t have an accepted definition both here and around the world.
You need educated… fortunately for me, Steve has done the homework and gives us the illustration that MARRIAGE DOES NOT HAVE AN ACCEPTED DEFINITION BOTH HERE AND AROUND THE WORLD….
Thanks, Steve…
http://delawarelibertarian.blogspot.com/2008/05/few-disturbing-historical-facts-about.html
March 27, 2009 at 3:09 pm
David Anderson
As I said on Steve’s post and in my own at the time marriage was and is a mixed gender institution. His post just illustrates that. If you read it, you will see that marriage is between a man and a woman. The fact that some cultures have experimented with non exclusivity has no impact on the definition.
The version which has served society the best is monogamy. Polygamy is poor policy in the abstract because it leaves out many men and creates instability in the society. The rich and powerful tend to get more women which means some men are left without any. That is why the system does not compete as well as the natural distribution of monogamy. The accepted definition of marriage was universal. It transcends cultures. It is the union of man and woman. The fact that some cultures allowed more than one marriage didn’t change the definition. Steve pretended that polygamy was the marriage of lets say a man and two women. It was not. It was the fact that the man was able to enter marriages more than once. The women were not married to each other. It is never a same sex institution except in the dream world of the left. What was a marriage did not change only the regulation of what was recognized i. e. two or twenty at once.
They will have their chance to experiment in a few countries. Then the movement will eventually die out on the ash heap of history.
You guys can celebrate. If you can get enough wacky left legislators, then you can change the marriage laws. I would consider that extremely disappointing, but what would be worse would be to do it by judicial fiat. That is an attack on the Constitutional process itself. I should hope that you see no matter the ends, making radical policy shifts does not fall to the courts. The courts overturning the civil rights acts with Plessey caused this country 70 years of turmoil. Then it tried to act like a hero for reversing the turmoil that it created. Its overturning of abortion laws is still causing turmoil. The court needs to let the constitutional process work out.
March 28, 2009 at 2:01 am
kavips
If I remember correctly, the courts are a part of the constitutional process.
Article III
Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.