See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #386929
   On July 25th, 2008 at 5:44 pm, markj1069 said:

   …a clash between federal and state laws makes the process anything but equal.

   What is the conflict between state laws and Federal laws on marriage? Tax issues perhaps?

2. #386958
   On July 25th, 2008 at 6:19 pm, Doctor Hook said:

   Their nuptials were oh so harried,
   For fear of Mitt, they could not be tarried,
   And now these two queers,
   Face the worst of their fears,
   How awful for them, they are MARRIED!

3. #386966
   On July 25th, 2008 at 6:30 pm, leepro said:

   Saw this joke over at LGF last night… HILARIOUS…
   A scene at City Hall in San Francisco………

   “Next.”

   “Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license.”

   “Names?”

   “Tim and Jim Jones.”

   “Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance.”

   “Yes, we’re brothers.”

   “Brothers? You can’t get married.”

   [snip... too long to post here... go to the link for the rest of the joke]

   

   Really, really, really FUNNY!

4. #386970
   On July 25th, 2008 at 6:33 pm, leepro said:

   RE: my #102 above

   Compliments of Ozark Mountain Daredevil at Little Green Footballs

5. #386980
   On July 25th, 2008 at 6:45 pm, Rusty said:

   I’m not defending the practice at all, mind you. I’m looking at this from a purely anthropological standpoint.

   You’re absolutely right. “Traditional” marriage means a lot of things that contemporary Americans would not be comfortable with. Which is why the argument for “traditional” marriage makes no sense to me.

   Rusty, what about Gerry Studds from MA? He had sex with a 17 year old page in 1973. This isn’t some 18 year old guy having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend. This is a 35+ year old man having sex with a 17 year old boy. Shouldn’t he have been arrested and charged with a crime? He wasn’t. He was re-elected to six terms. Would you have voted for this democrat?

   First, no he shouldn’t have been charged with a crime. The age of consent in Washington, DC and Massachusetts is 16.

   This is a tough case for me because Gerry Studds is from my home district. Studds was smart enough to frame it as a homosexual relationship and his censure as gay bashing. Although this was clearly not the case, I think this may have guilted some people (cough, my parents, cough) into voting for his reelection. Studds also had a reputation as being a fantastic legislator so his skills got him out of some trouble.

   Despite the relationship being legal, dating a minor who you’re basically in charge of is highly immoral and dangerous. It’s a bad situation that exposes the Page Program and the House at great liability.

   I never had the chance to vote for or against Rep. Studds, but I don’t think I could bring myself to have voted for him immediately after the scandal.

   If the page were 15 then he would have been impeached so fast our heads would spin. But the line in the sand is 16, so there it is.

6. #386990
   On July 25th, 2008 at 6:57 pm, DBNinKY said:

   “…same-sex couples are discovering that getting divorced can be far more complicated than getting married.”

   Ha,ha,ha! This is just what I said would happen. Now our courts will be backed up for miles with divorce cases for marriages that never should have been and bankruptcy cases to preserve properties that never should have been placed in jeopardy.

   I feel sorry for the women and children trapped in abusive marriages and now have to wait for the courts’ protection and provisions while Harry divorces Ed.

7. #386996
   On July 25th, 2008 at 7:06 pm, Mookie said:

   On July 25th, 2008 at 5:34 pm, corona said:

   Thanks, Stookie, for proving how dumb a troll can be.

   I’ll make it so simple that you, Musty, and lOgJAm might understand it.

   M1 “marries” M2 & F1 “marries” F2 in a state with this nonsense.

   In another state that does not recognize same-sex pseduo-marriages,
   M1 marries F1 and M2 marries F2.

   Draw yourself a diagram, bozo.

   Did I miss something? What the hell are you talking about?

8. #387024
   On July 25th, 2008 at 7:34 pm, Die Hippie, Die said:

   On July 25th, 2008 at 3:35 pm, Mookie said:
   …she thinks there should be a limit on how many times people are allowed to marry. A three strikes and your out policy, if you will. She thinks it would force people to take marriage more seriously and divorce rates would decline since people wouldn’t rush into getting married without being total committed to making it work. I thought that was kind of interesting. Any thoughts?

   Your friend is obviously an Islamophobe. Allah, peace be unto his most merciful self, has decreed that a man may take four wives…please. And what is this three strikes and you’re out? In Islam it’s two balls and you go straight to third base. Four balls is two gay Muslims in the park after dark.

   Oh yeah…Death to the Infidels!

9. #387025
   On July 25th, 2008 at 7:38 pm, Die Hippie, Die said:

   I see no one has brought up this threat to gay “marriage.”

   How can anyone ever get married if they’re impeded in getting a date?

10. #387030
    On July 25th, 2008 at 7:43 pm, fulldroolcup said:

    Rusty, MY oppostion to gay marriage is because it is judicially – imposed. We live in a constitutional republic, where the elected representatives of the people are empowered to decide on such matters, based on the wishes of their constituents.

    So far, every referendum on the topic has resulted in gay marriage NOT being acceptable to the majority.

    Apparently you think unelected judges get to tell the people what they must do.

    But, hey, that just makes you another leftnoid who treats the Constitution as toilet paper on one day, an unchanging sacred document the next, and a living, breathing Rorschach test the day after that.

11. #387066
    On July 25th, 2008 at 8:14 pm, Die Hippie, Die said:

    All I want to know is who get’s the vibrator? Who gets the gerbils?

    Who gets the bed linens?

12. #387091
    On July 25th, 2008 at 8:41 pm, goodforlaughs said:

    What’s that old saying — be careful what you ask for, you just may get it?

13. #387100
    On July 25th, 2008 at 8:54 pm, atheling said:

    On July 25th, 2008 at 6:57 pm, DBNinKY said:

    I feel sorry for the women and children trapped in abusive marriages and now have to wait for the courts’ protection and provisions while Harry divorces Ed.

    You got that right. The courts are already swamped with family law cases, and now this garbage is going to clog up the system even more. Pure idiocy.

14. #387118
    On July 25th, 2008 at 9:14 pm, AniMEL said:

    James Felix, as for the “American tradition” comment, I was making the remark in response to another commenter who said, “leave my country’s traditions alone!”

    And those arguments were, in fact, used during the push to eliminate the ban on interracial marriage. Even my hyper-religious mother admits remembering it, despite the fact that it’s a point of contention with the gay community.

    I think it’s also worth pointing out that there is an equal percentage of “straight” people who are just as sick and twisted as the dark element of the gay community I see so many people here making jabs at. My younger sister is the perfect example. Do those here who are against homosexuality believe that way because of religion, or are you just set in your ways?

    I’m not trying to start a fight, just asking an honest question.

15. #387210
    On July 26th, 2008 at 2:27 am, atheling said:

    On July 25th, 2008 at 4:15 pm, James Felix said:

    Marriage as an American tradition doesn’t make it untouchable, either. Just because it’s a tradition doesn’t make it okay.

    I’m pretty sure our concept of marriage pre-dates 7/4/1776 by a considerable margin. And just because it’s a tradition doesn’t make it not okay, either. In any event the proper way for this to be decided is through the legislative process, not by the whims of a handful of unelected judges who decide to impose their worldview on 300 million people.

    James Felix you are correct. What Rusty and his ilk do not understand is that marriage between a man and a woman is universal. Liberals are extremely myopic when it comes to culture. They are only aware of their own, at the present. They have no regard for tradition because they are chauvinists.

    GK Chesterton:

    Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to that arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be walking around.

    “Arrogant oligarchy” indeed.

16. #387211
    On July 26th, 2008 at 2:29 am, atheling said:

    Whoops, I should have said that you are half correct.

17. #387214
    On July 26th, 2008 at 3:23 am, emjem24 said:

    Mookie:

    You know, the whole “3 strikes and you’re out” idea would be practical for the folks who are serial divorcees. It’s an interesting idea, but wouldn’t be easy to enforce (if such a law or policy were possible- shhhh, don’t give the government any ideas). Unfortunately, it would be lost on certain members of my family (two aunts to be specific) who have been divorced at least 2 times already.

    I think people (of either sexual orientation) are in love with love. Some people can’t even tell the difference between sex and love (my aunts). Furthermore, some people have a romanticized view of what love is and how marriage should be.

    Here’s an interesting idea… how ’bout mandatory pre-marital counseling like what the Catholic Church does? I think this would be ideal for the couple who find themselves fighting over everything from finances to who controls the remote. Perhaps, if you get the rules down, nobody would be rushing for a quickie divorce.

    Then again, you can’t really legislate against stupid behavior or poor marriage choices.

18. #387380
    On July 26th, 2008 at 12:39 pm, twofoot said:

    I wonder if the “rank and file” gay and lesbian couples were really out to make a political point? I think it more likely it was strictly personal. Done purely for spite. A way to stick a sharp stick in the eye of those who hold to traditional views of marriage.

    Well, as you reap, so shall you sow.

    Enjoy a taste of the real world.

19. #387461
    On July 26th, 2008 at 2:08 pm, Blind_Mule said:

    purplepeep said:
    I think that’s terrible, Mule! Though I hope they can work out who gets to keep the pet. I mean, we’re all fond of our animals whether they be cats, dogs or gerbils….

    I’m sorry, I did’nt mean to offend you but I agree we’re all fond of kitties, monkies and those hu ha thingies.

20. #387803
    On July 27th, 2008 at 10:43 am, twofoot said:

    Hmmm, obviously I should not try and post before having morning coffee.

    As you sow, so shall you reap.

    Sheesh.

21. #388114
    On July 28th, 2008 at 2:59 am, RabbidSquirrel said:

    Random thought….

    If a gay wedding is just absolutely fiercly FANTABULOUS and to die for, what does a gay divorce look like….?

22. #388679
    On July 28th, 2008 at 3:25 pm, publiuswarmac9999 said:

    The problem with the liberals is that they don’t recognize the stabilizing influence of heterosexual marriage when it comes to family, children and society. They somehow think that thousands of year of experimentation with different male and female relationships leading to the concept of marriage should be discarded in favor of an “anything goes” mentality. The breakdown of any society comes about when there are no moral standards and all that is left is the law.

23. #388687
    On July 28th, 2008 at 3:31 pm, publiuswarmac9999 said:

    From aniMel: Do those here who are against homosexuality believe that way because of religion, or are you just set in your ways

    Neither. I have seen that damage that homosexuality does and you, apparently, have not bothered to try to find out what that damage is. I suggest you try “google” on homosexuality and look at the data. There is plenty of information out there but the homosexual community doesn’t want you to know about it because it isn’t very nice.

24. #392332
    On July 31st, 2008 at 5:42 pm, trainwife1962 said:

    
    WAHHHHH!!!!!!!

    No sympathy here for the sodomites!!! Boycatt McDonald’s too, while we’re at it!!!