elperromagico
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-10-04 02:46 PM
Original message |
Suppose we could get anti-divorce amendments on the ballots |
|
in the 11 states where anti-gay marriage amendments passed?
Think they'd pass? Just trying to protect the sanctity of marriage, that's all...
|
Shoeempress
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-10-04 02:48 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Interesting. Would that Mobilize our base? Could that be our wedge |
|
issue? Or more importantly, can we get the Wingnuts to propose the same and seem Really nuts
|
chelsea32491
(49 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-10-04 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
|
what i was thinking. My conservative friends try to tell me that banning gay marriage will help marriage, by protecting it. what about the 60% of all married couples that get divorced each year? I think that hurts a family more than ANYTHING. not gay marriage. hmmm...
|
elperromagico
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-10-04 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
5. Our Bible Belt friends could take a cue from liberal Massachusetts, |
|
which boasts the lowest divorce rate in the country...
|
BOSSHOG
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-10-04 02:49 PM
Response to Original message |
|
I will pursue with gusto here in Mississippi. How could anyone object from the pulpit. Thanks for the idea. Wording?? Til death do you part means exactly what it says in the eyes of the lord.
|
elperromagico
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-10-04 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
4. To honor the holy institution of marriage by rendering divorce illegal. |
onenote
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-10-04 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
|
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (KIng James Version).
Fundies can't argue with Matthew can they?
onenote
|
Shoeempress
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-10-04 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
6. You should be able to get every devout Catholic to go for it, since |
|
the Pope is against it. But most of the liberal catholics would be against it. I think this could work.
|
Davis_X_Machina
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-10-04 02:55 PM
Response to Original message |
7. Divorce is one of the things... |
|
...that distinguishes Protestantism from Catholicsm, and any serious move to ban it would immediately be attacked on doctrinal grounds, as creeping Romanism.
|
elperromagico
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-10-04 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
9. Yet both Protestants and Catholics read the same basic Bible, |
|
and God - or Christ, at least - frowns upon divorce in both versions.
|
GumboYaYa
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-10-04 03:41 PM
Response to Original message |
10. Attack it from a different angle. Try to get "Covenant Marriages" on |
|
the ballots. These are the marriages adopted in some states where you can elect to have a higher standard to get a divorce.
|
Shoeempress
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-10-04 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
14. Then we can get even more fundies to the polls, No thanks, they |
|
have done enough damage already. Not to mention those are a violation of the Equal Protection Clause imho.
|
GumboYaYa
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-10-04 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #14 |
22. Actually, when I think about it, those "covenant marriages" are |
|
a really bad idea. They will just use them to trap women in abusive relationships.
|
SouthALdem
(66 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-10-04 03:45 PM
Response to Original message |
11. Dear God, please no... |
|
if it was there, I couldn't divorce my loser of a tard Bushie estranged husband.
But after MY divorce, I'm all for it. :toast:
|
tandot
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-10-04 03:56 PM
Response to Original message |
12. and make adultery and pre-marital sex a crime, too |
|
those hypocritical idiots would be the first in jail.
The "protect the sanctity of marriage" thing is utter bullshit. They don't care about marriage. The highest divorce rates are in the Bush-loving states. I just moved from SW Oklahoma to N California. The divorce rate in Comanche County, Oklahoma was about 75%. And there was a really high rate of teenage pregnancy.
These people hate gays. They are driven by their hate. If they could, they would make homosexuality a crime. Actually, I am pretty sure that sooner or later they get so emboldened by Bush's "win", that they'll press for that, too.
|
Qanisqineq
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-10-04 04:02 PM
Response to Original message |
69KV
(444 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-10-04 08:42 PM
Response to Original message |
15. Do some tongue in cheek amendments |
|
Declare that marriages within fringe fundamentalist, charismatic, or evangelical sects (defined as any Christian denomination which was not recognized as mainline or mainstream in the 1950s, is involved in the "pro-life" movement, Promise Keepers or other Repuke front groups, or uses styles of worship which did not exist in the 1950s such as praise choruses and the "our god is an awesome god" schlock) will not be recognized by the state.
The amendments should also declare that modern evangelicalism is an immoral, unnatural, lifestyle choice. Nobody was *born* an evangelical. They made that choice, and in order to protect society and the sanctity of marrriage, they should not be allowed to marry.
They want to go back to the 1950s? That's exactly what we should give them.
|
Name removed
(0 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-10-04 08:43 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
|
jefferson_dem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-10-04 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #16 |
17. You sign up today and spam this shit all over the board!? STOP NOW! |
killbotfactory
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-10-04 08:45 PM
Response to Original message |
18. Anti-Divorce and Adultery |
|
For guys adultery should lead to one year of chemical casteration, or jail time... if it was a dude.
Women are the lesser sex and should be held in a subservient position to men. Just like the bible says.
|
quaker bill
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-10-04 08:54 PM
Response to Original message |
19. I think if we are going to start regulating female reprodictive organs |
|
Edited on Wed Nov-10-04 09:02 PM by quaker bill
Then a sense of equity should prevail. How about a pole tax? (Levied by the centimeter - it would help cut down on the exaggeration bit)
Perhaps an phalic operators permit? Pregnancy resulting from the unlicensed operation of your unit resulting in fines and imprisonment?
I am good with the divorce ammendment. Perhaps with forfeiture of all property and assets in the case of infidelity resulting in divorce. Prison on the second offense.
|
killbotfactory
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-10-04 08:57 PM
Response to Original message |
20. And better yet... GET REPUBLICANS TO TAKE POSITIONS ON IT |
|
HAHAHAHA
"I'm agin' the anti-divorce initiative beca--" "WHY DON'T YOU RESPECT MARRIAGE! BOOOOOOOOOOO!"
|
floridadem30
(525 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-10-04 09:04 PM
Response to Original message |
21. My sentiments exactly |
|
I wrote a letter to the white house today that said the same thing except that I posted it based on changing laws that protect our freedoms such as Roe V. Wade and added if the president changes this law we should add some new laws about divorce and not being allowed to commit adultery either. After all marriage should be protected right.
|
Digit
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-10-04 09:44 PM
Response to Original message |
23. I remember reading that in Russia, divorce was illegal |
|
I would either be in prison now for killing my husband or dead from him killing me. I think the latter. You have NO idea of the monster I had married. Note, we were not married long before I began to see the light. He would rent Grade B slasher films and replay the scenes over and over of the woman getting murdered although it sounded like she was having an orgasm. I heard this from upstairs so he was not doing it for MY benefit. Whenever I hear of a serial killer in his area, I put on my alert and check it out to see if it is him. You can call me happily divorced, but I was lucky to get out with my life.
|
elperromagico
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-10-04 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #23 |
24. We wouldn't push these amendments thinking they'd pass. |
|
Edited on Wed Nov-10-04 10:50 PM by elperromagico
They wouldn't pass. The point would be to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the people who pushed the gay marriage amendments. Those amendments weren't designed to sanctify marriage. They were designed to help Bush.
Glad you got out of that marriage. Nobody needs to be married to a nutcase. Ask Laura. :D
|
elperromagico
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-10-04 10:59 PM
Response to Original message |
25. As I said in an earlier reply, you don't put these amendments up |
|
thinking they'll pass. None of us want divorce to be illegal. People make wrong choices and need to get out of bad marriages.
It's like Bush's move for a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. He knew it wouldn't pass. But it was tossing a bone to his base.
Any amendments regarding marriage that made it onto the ballots would be merely symbolic in nature. It's all about pointing up hypocrisy. Oh... and protecting marriage. :D
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri May 03rd 2024, 04:04 PM
Response to Original message |