should the Dems adopt the federal marriage "protection" amendment

leftofthedial

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-01-06 10:10 AM
Original message

should the Dems adopt the federal marriage "protection" amendment

(wink-wink, nudge-nudge, know what I mean?)

the same way the repukes adopted "compassionate conservatism"?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

TechBear_Seattle

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-01-06 10:15 AM
Response to Original message

1. That would be the Federal Marriage Protection Amendment...

That protects marriage for the benefit of ALL people as opposed to keeping it a special right for heterosexuals only, correct? :hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

realisticphish

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-01-06 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #1

2. exactly

we need to start using clever phrasing like that...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

leftofthedial

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-01-06 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #1

6. no, I mean to wink wink nudge nudge feign intolerance

get the redneck idiot vote and then govern however the hell they want (meaning to allow states to develop their own gay marriage laws). Then, when many states allow gay marriage, pass a true equal marriage rights amendment since that's what the states want

use the repuke duplicity when running for office

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

BR_Parkway

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-01-06 10:34 AM
Response to Original message

3. Ban divorce and lock people up for adultery if you want to "protect"

wedded bliss.

Meanwhile, I wish some reporter would have the cajones to ask Shrub at next weeks ~~hate fest~~ press conference when all the fire and brimstone they are going to protect us from by not allowing homos to marry is going to start, since they've been getting married in Canada, England and even Massachusetts for a couple years now. Where is all the chaos and destruction they've been wailing about?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

tenshi816

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-01-06 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #3

4. Absolutely.

We need to talk this up. Tell them, OK, yeah, you can have your amendment but if you do, then if you're so sincere in wanting to "protect the sanctity of marriage", then there should be no more divorce under any circumstances and a non-negotiable prison term for adultery.

Also, I don't think it gets pointed out to the RW fundie crowd nearly enough that while one of the Ten Commandments says "thou shalt not commit adultery" (and that included divorce in the Bible), nowhere in that Top 10 does it say "thou shalt not be gay".

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

BR_Parkway

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Jun-02-06 02:31 AM
Response to Reply #4

8. Jesus himself said divorce and remarraige was adultery, the Pharisees

had to accomodate that one or they'd have killed their donation stream by actually condemning those people based on Jesus' words.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

trogdor

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-01-06 10:47 AM
Response to Original message

5. I like the Plaid Adder's amendment

Marriage is between one man and one woman until death do they part. Pre/extramarital sexual relations is a federal crime, and divorce is forbidden. See the Republicans' heads asplode.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

leftofthedial

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-01-06 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #5

7. they won't care.

laws don't apply to them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Thu May 16th 2024, 01:08 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.