It must be an election year because ...

The "cultural roots" of marriage is not rooted in marriage or even one woman one man. History has demonstrated that the longest running and most "popular" form of marriage has been one man and many women.

Also, if Fredo feels adding discrimination to the Constitution is a good thing, then there is no shadow of a doubt that historians will look down upon him as an absolutely dreadful human being, not just the worst president ever.

 

A point, if I may: If anything, having same-sex marriages on the ballot benefits those in favor of them, because if you have it in one of those accursed odd-numbered years, about the only people who'll show up besides the friends and family of the school board nominees are the hardcore anti-gay marriage advocates.

So far, of course, gay marriage has been resoundingly defeated everywhere it's been contested, even liberal Oregon. That does nothing for or against me (I don't care what the government defines as marriage and couldn't give a flying fuck about the issue, so let the gays get hitched and move on), but it's there.

 

Don't forget the Iowa strip joint arrest or killing of some mid-level "terrorist" whose second cousin twice removed once had dinner at Ossama Bin Ladden's 37th brother's 15th wife's third cousin by marriage's Afghani restaurant. This will occur sometime before the terror alert is raised, so we will all know that our Homeland Security dollars are being well spent.

Well, there's my political post for the quarter. Carry on with your incessant bitching and partisan pissing matches.

 

Which, of course, is why the GOP puts it on the ballot only in election years. It draws out the knuckle-draggers and, whilst they're at it, they'll also vote for a Bush or a Blackwell or a Katherine Harris. This is a page right out of Lee Atwater's first cancer cell.

 

To say that same-sex marriage bans are the will of the people is something of a misnomer, no matter what the numbers actually say. There's far more people out there who are so religious (scared, confused, angry, etc.) that they'll actually take the time to cast a ballot on election day than there are people who are supportive of gay rights and will do the same. If more of the apathetic voters got out there and cast a vote, it might not be as much of a mandate as the gay-haters think.

And let me ask this to all the conservatives out there: What is your reasoning, beyond a biblical standpoint, for wanting to ban gay marriages or unions?

 

I don't have any problem with gay marriage unless it's mandatory.

 

If pro-gay organizations like ActUp had any balls ( ) they'd run ads pointing out which anti-gay-marriage amendment backers have been divorced. Seems to me to be the ultimate in hypocrsy -- voting to "protect" the sanctity of marriage after you've broken your vow to God and man to love a wife/husband "until death do us part."

 

Where, outside of Massachusetts, is gay marriage legal?

 

"I'm in favor of gay marriage. Why shouldn't they be as miserable as everybody else?"

-Kinky Friedman, candidate for Texas governor

 

That's a great quote.

 

He had a pretty good one about Carol Keaton-Strayhorn-Rylander, one of the other independents running for Texas governor, when she turned in more signatures than he did on the due date for filing for the race.

"Of course she got more signatures than I did. She got all her ex-husbands to sign."

 

There's bumper stickers floating around here in the Lone Star State that say "My governor is a Jewish cowboy." If only instead of the little furry creature that is Rick Perry.