Here's a good way to protect the "sanctity of marriage!"

[liberalhistorian]

Since, despite all of the very real and urgent problems facing the nation right now, the Senate and House have nothing better to do than to pry into the private lives of millions of Americans, telling people what they can and cannot do in their own private lives and simplistically deciding for the rest of us how we should conduct our personal relationships, I thought I'd help them out and come up with the perfect way to help protect the "sanctity of marriage", besides prohibiting J.Lo and Britney from ever marrying again and prohibiting shows like Wife Swap, Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire, Who Wants to Marry My Dad, etc., etc.

So, what is this brilliant plan? Why, they can pass a federal law prohibiting married and engaged men and women from hitting on single guys and gals. Every week I, as a never-married single mom, get hit on by at least two married men who seem to think I should be grateful for any male attention at all and that I must be easy because I'm a single mother. It never fails. And I have other friends and family who say the same thing. Never mind that I consider being in any way involved with married men to be amoral, immoral, unethical, and very, very wrong. They all seem to think they can change my mind by trying to convince me how lucky I am to get any of their attention. I tell them to go home and lavish some attention on their wives, who badly need it and who are the only ones they should even consider giving such "attention" to.

I don't want to hear any bullshit about how "my wife doesn't understand me", etc., etc., blahblahblah, either. And married women also hit on single men, too, so the same should go for them. And, while we're at it, let's criminalize married people getting involved with other married people, too. We could have a whole force of "relationship police" keeping watch and following us and checking all of this to make sure it's all complied with and people are maintaining the "sanctity of marriage." So, no one would have a private life anymore, so what? Marriage must be protected at all costs and by any means available to the state!

There, you blowhard politicians, problem solved! Wasn't that so much easier than having to deal with those icky marriage-destroying gay couples who've often been together longer than the majority of married couples?

[onebigbadwulf]

1. Don't forget making divorce illegal.

[liberalhistorian]

2. Ahhh, yes, definitely,

that should be first and foremost! So, your husband or wife is physically and/or emotionally abusive, so what? You married them, you made your bed, so deal with it!!! It's probably all your fault, anyway. Yes, indeed, what a perfect solution. So, the murder rate would go up drastically, we'll just add more police to along with the extra police on "relationship" duty.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

8. Please tell me that post was a joke.

And please tell me you were just trying to be as silly as they are. Domestic Violence should NEVER be joked about. Sorry I'm uptight, but my cousin was murdered that way.
Duckie

[liberalhistorian]

9. Yes, Duckie, absolutely a joke!

I'm sorry if I offended you in any way, I sure didn't mean to. I know domestic violence is no joke at all and I was parodying those blowhards who think women should stay in marriages where they're being abused because of the "sanctity of marriage", no matter what they're suffering.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

13. I'm not offended...I just needed clarification.

Those bastards are fucking up this world. There is no such thing as the Sanctity of marriage anymore. Rush ruined that three divorces ago.
Duckie

[Gothic Sponge]

3. Marriage is evil and should be banned!

[liberalhistorian]

5. LOL!

I'm sure that's what those blowhard repukes believe WE think about marriage, never mind the sorry track record of too many of those who are screaming the loudest about "protecting marriage." And don't look now, but that's exactly what they said about legalizing interracial marriages. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[SarahB]

4. There is something to that.

I'm married, but not exactly happily at this point and I'm pretty sure that I know where it's going to end up, so I don't wear my ring anymore because I feel fake if I do. I get hit on too frequently now, even with my children, and by men with rings or who are "taken". I had a guy (who was talking to the office lady about his fiance) at the allergist's office overhear me say to my daughter we were going to the health food store afterwards. Guess who shows up at the health food store trying to be all friendly? That guy!!! :wtf: Kind of creepy too. It was polite brush off time.

[liberalhistorian]

6. I know, and I hate it when that happens to me.

And I always feel bad for the wife or the husband, in the case of women who do it. The problem is that you just can't, nor should you ever, legislate things like that.

[SarahB]

7. Exactly.

Irritating, but manners can't quite be legislated.

[DS1]

10. How about branding instead of engagement rings?

I mean if you're really serious, a burn wouldn't take long to heal.

But this really doesn't take into account death, or the fact that you never had pre-marital sex and your different tastes really does become a sticking point. Of course, you could cut your finger off.

Still, no matter how many different ways a person can think of to 'protect marriage', Republicans will always be largely full of shit, so let's no bother m'kay Mr. Slave?

[liberalhistorian]

11. "Republicans will largely be full of shit",

truer words were never spoken! I just wish they'd leave our private lives the hell alone. You'd think with all their blather about "getting government off our backs" and a "less intrusive government", etc., etc., that would be easy for them. No one ever said they had brains, though.

[DS1]

12. Unfortunately..

This 'protection of marriage' isn't about the ability to marry one day, annul the next, marry the day after and divorce a week later, it's about those dastardly gay people and their inconceivable belief that they deserve some sort of rights like everyone else. Only in this case it's not about drinking from separate fountains, or riding in the back of the bus, it's about insurance companies.

/all but that tiny last part sarcasm