TheAgitator.com
I Blame Gay Marriage!
Saturday, September 6th, 2008Thrice-married Newt Gingrich valiantly defends the sanctity of the institution he shat on. Because, you know, if gays start getting married, it’ll sully the whole concept of marriage, and it might make him cheat again.
“if gays start getting married, it’ll sully the whole concept of marriage, and it might make him cheat again.”
That’s actually kinda funny if you read it just right and Gingrich is right. Marriage was “sullied” almost exactly a year ago in P-Town.
That’s the best comment I got. As funny and annoying as it is to point out how these wedding addicted hypocrites are each time they speak, it is getting kind of dull. There just isn’t that much more to say and at this point if people don’t see the irony and contradiction, they don’t want to and never will.
Wouldn’t it be nice if a politician came out and stated that the government has no right to issue marriage licenses? Gay or straight, both sides of the issue want licenses so they don’t have to take responsibility to legally combine assets, sign prenuptial agreements, change names, etc.
I’m SURE Newt would be equally concerned about “judicial tyranny” if the courts overruled a voter referendum on, say, medical marijuana as well, right??
Conservatives has made it so that whenever I hear the words “family” in a political context, I INSTANTLY think of homosexuality. Oops.
I love the complete disrespect these guys have for judges. You can always tell who the fuck up is in the room. He is the one pointing his finger and blaming someone else for his own shortcomings.
I raise a practical question… If judges shouldn’t strike down laws that violate the state or federal constitution, then why even have a constitution?
The argument that “the people” should decide what constitutes marriage is a much better argument to make than homosexuality “sullies” the marriage pact. He’s right about unelected judges deciding on their own what rights (or the lack thereof) the people have. I’ve always been a firm believer the u.s. constitution is very plain and what isn’t specified is left to the states to decide upon their own. If Missouri doesn’t want gays to marry but Illinois does then it’s up to those voters, not some ass in a robe.
Radley is right tho, maybe it would make a better argument if it came from someone who wasn’t twice divorced.
I ask out of ignorance….
Are the judges in CA elected?
Here in Texas they are, just curious about CA and too tired to google
+1 to Matt.
I always ask my socially conservative Christian friends why they allow the government to license an institution that is ordained by God. I mostly get blank stares, until I start comparing marriage licenses to licenses for baptism, to state licenses to preach or teach Sunday School, etc. Sometimes the light flickers on, and they understand that gays aren’t the problem, government is.
Ah, Newt, never was there a cocksucker born like Newt was born’d. I can only hope the christer right does take over and they outlaw divorce to save Newt from himself.
I hate having to choose between the tyranny of the oligarchy or the tyranny of the majority. Can’t we just live in liberty? Matt is right. Government shouldn’t be licensing marriage at all.
Best line of the RNC goes to Triumph the Insult Dog:
“Hey, Newt, how’d you get that big head of yours inside the hall?”
Should read Triumph the Insult *Comic* Dog.
Really need to proofread these things. Gotten lazy from having access to an Edit button.
Oh, and props to Radley for the proper use of the past tense of shit. I’m sick of people using it wrong. That, and saying “spit” when they mean to say “spat.” Now, I don’t ant to get off on a rant here….
bottom line:
newt gingrich is an ass-clown
all social conservataives are ass-clowns
they love to advocate small government except when it comes to gay marriage and a woman’s uterus.
then we find out they are all either gay and/or cheating on their wives
So Gingrich advocates tyranny of the majority, and thinks that that is the only alternative to tyranny of….minorities? What’s so wrong with liberty, allowing each person to choose how to best live his or her own life? Why does the government feel it needs to grant permission for two people to get married anyway?
Oops, sorry Blue, should’ve read the comments before repeating you. Well, you made a good point.