I posted this in the other Prop 8 thread today, but I think I'll cut-and-paste it here since it strikes at an issue near and dear to Mittens' heart. I have a proposal which I would think any Prop 8 supporter would find to be legally permissible, since it relies on their own arguments. My proposal is this: I hereby propose an amendment to the California Constitution invalidating Mormon marriages in this state.

As polygamists for decades (even though they no longer engage in polygamy and now want to be treated as "normal" people), Mormons historically have shown a complete disregard for the traditional marriage of one man and one woman. Plus, I gotta say--and I hope this doesn't sound bigoted--Mormons as a group make me uncomfortable, and I don't share their values or approve of their lifestyle choices. For example, they're always pumping out housefuls of kids (an environmentally irresponsible practice), riding around on bikes while wearing white dress shirts and black ties and knocking on my door to disturb me while I'm relaxing at home, all for the purpose of trying to push a copy of the Book of Mormon on me, wearing funny but unAmerican sacred underwear, never drinking coffee or booze like normal Americans do, posthumously baptizing Holocaust victims as Mormons against their descendants' will, etc. These are not traditional American values, and I do not approve of these people profaning my traditional marriage by claiming to be married like normal people. Not to mention that these Mormons are always pushing their Mormon agenda on the rest of us and trying to recruit others--including even impressionable young children, shamefully enough--to share their Mormon lifestyle choice.

Of course, as the biggest backers of Prop 8 in California, Mormons have signaled to the world that it's acceptable for me to openly advocate discrimination against groups who don't share my personal values and beliefs, and whose lifestyles I find objectionable or shameful. Even the most prominent Mormon in America, Mitt Romney, obviously agrees with this. Given their historical disregard for traditional marriage, I feel this is a cause we should all get behind. I mean, what if our schools were required to teach kids that Mormons used engage in polygamy--and that in fact some offshoot Mormon groups still do engage in polygamy? Do we want our schools teaching our kids that it's OK or "normal" to have multiple spouses? If we legitimize Mormon marriages, then wouldn't other non-Mormon churches--churches that reject Mormonism and believe it to be contrary to the teachings of their own religion--be forced to perform Mormon-on-Mormon (or Mormon-on-Mormon-on-Mormon?) two-person or polygamous marriage ceremonies, out of fear that they could be sued if they refuse to do so (just as some Mormons claimed that their church would be forced to perform gay marriages if same-sex marriage were legalized)?

Protect traditional marriage--ban Mormon-on-Mormon marriage. Of course, this doesn't discriminate against Mormons in any way, because like all other heterosexuals, they still will have the right to marry anybody they want, just as long as it's not another Mormon. If they really want to live with another Mormon, of course, they can live in sin as domestic partners--just don't confuse that sort of thing with traditional marriage.

If my sole redeeming feature as a human was "less of an asshole than Newt Gingrich" I think I'd just kill myself mittens.

Do we want a president who invests so poorly?

Rival Newt Gingrich has gone even farther by pledging to abolish the Ninth Circuit entirely.

oh - and Gingrich has no right at all to talk about the sanctity of marriage. if he DOES get up on a stage somewhere and start talking about 'protecting marriage' he should be pelted with rotten fruit and little cocktail weiners until he's forced to abandon the microphone and unleash Callistia on the crowd.

Traditional marriage, as defined by the Bible.

FTFA: "Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage," Romney said.

Good thing those elected judges on the Supreme Court will get to decide on the issue!!

See Mitt run.

See Mitt flip-flop.

Hear Mitt lie.

Watch Mitt pander.

See Mitt lose.

Elandriel: FTFA: "Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage," Romney said.

Good thing those elected judges on the Supreme Court will get to decide on the issue!!

The ensuing flip flop will make John Kerry look like.... umm.. someone who absolutely never flip flops. Sorry, I'm no Dennis Miller over here.

"Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage," Romney said. "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and another woman, and another woman, and as many more women as the one man can get. Oh, shiat. I think I just came in my magic underwear."

James!: Do we want a president who invests so poorly?


He invested... poorly.

"Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California Alabama who voted to protect traditional marriage society," Romney Wallace said.

Equal protection is for Republicans only, suckaz

Super late, but "unelected judges". Really?

It's been kind of fun watching people's heads explode today. I was getting sick of the GOP primary derp, this derp is like a work of art.

depmode98: I never understood this. In the bible traditional marriage is defined as a man and a woman and her maid servant. is this what christians want?

Well, that's just ONE of the ways in which marriage is defined.

Abe marries Sarah and Hagar (as a concubine). He took another concubine, Keturah, after Sarah died and he'd sent Hagar away (so I guess that's cool).

Ike married only Rebecca, sight unseen, after his dad's servant essentially bought her from her father (who was Abe's first cousin; Ike married his second cousin. Which is icky, but genetically OK).

Jake married four women - his "beloved" Rachel, her sister Leah, and each of their maids (Zilpah and Bilhah).

The Big Three were not above some god-sanctioned strange, and it wasn't until the Middle Ages (sometime around 1070, if memory serves) that Judaism specifically forbade polygamy.

Of course, this assumes that "traditional" marriage is how Jews see it. I suspect Christians have their own ways, Muslims have theirs and agnostics like me just want some kind of fairness. There's the American slave tradition of jumping over a broom (I don't know why) - failure to do so is violating someone's idea of "traditional" marriage. There's Eastern traditions I know nothing about. There are fake "marriages" done by Mormons to match up souls in heaven or somesuch. Arranged marriage has probably been tradition longer than any other kind, so it seems like that should be "traditional" above all others.

My class of 13 year olds put it pretty well this evening: "People are people, and who they go home to doesn't change who they are." Let them get married.

// and, while we're on the subject of Leviticus, how's your bacon? Shellfish? Rabbit?
// ever touched an animal corpse?
// for those few people who married someone, divorced them, got married to someone else, then married the first person again, that's a Levitical prohibition
// there are 612 other rules, and no support for the idea that that one trumps the others
// Hillel the Sage said: "That which is distasteful to you, do not do to your neighbor. The rest is interpretation, go and learn it."

Shaggy_C: [i44.tinypic.com image 400x400]

/inquiring minds want to know

We can unamend the amendment to amend the amending amendment of amendments.

WhyteRaven74: colon_pow: see the rights left to the states.
Actually when it comes to marriage being a right, it's the ninth not tenth amendment that's in play.

The constitutional basis is actually found in the 14th Amendment.

Not all fundamental rights are listed by name in the Constitution. The 14th Amendment says the government cannot "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Various Supreme Court decisions over the years have defined numerous basic societal and human rights as fundamental rights of "liberty" that the gubbamint can't fark around with unless it has a damn good reason to do so. Among these include the right to have and raise children, the right to vote, the right to travel from state to state, the right to privacy, and in a whole line of cases (including Griswold v. Connecticut and Loving v. Virginia), the right to marry.

Yeah, I know some people would say that "marriage" and "liberty" are actually opposites, but this is how it's been interpreted.

Nadie_AZ: ....you won't hear from them ever again.

hold on a sec., you get a membership number? now that's by far the weirdest thing about Mormonism. well maybe not the weirdest but the creepiest.

/you know who else was into numbering humans?

Tergiversada: The basic idea behind the covenants is to be your very best self and to serve God and others.

Something wrong clearly happened to that idea.

A little off topic here... But does anyone have an explination of the magic underwear? I know mormons are supposed to wear special panties... but... why? Serious question.

I hope god isn't that concerned with my underpants. I'll have to explain the laundry situation.

Lessee, wonder what my score is in Bigot Bingo:

unelected judges... Will of the people... Preserve our values.... I believe marriage is between a man and a woman... Protect traditional marriage....

BINGO~!

dahmers love zombie: I am going to shamelessly yoink that, modify it, and use it to vex the Baptists. Just lettin' you know.

Please do. I posted something along those lines on Fark a few years ago after Prop 8 passed, and it wound up being reposted by someone on a bunch of Mormon discussion websites. Some took it literally and thought it was religious persecution, but a few of the Mormons who read it did react with "Hmmm, I guess this guy has a point" sort of responses, which was encouraging.

meat0918:
Also he's after intertwining government and religion so that you can make a shiat load of money while telling people it's "God's Will and Blessing".

prosperity gospel heretics make me want to burn people at the stake.

Fish in a Barrel: Every time I hear the phrase, "unelected judges," it makes me a little stabby.

that's just the daily talking point. I don't think the Republicans actually put any thought into it.

Weaver95: propasaurus: If Romney is elected, will 10% of his taxpayer funded salary go directly to the LDS?

I suspect Romney cheats his church out of money just as easily as he cheats at paying taxes.

I wonder if that's why he's so hesitant to release his returns. He knows that a platoon of LDS lawyers and accountants will be poring over it, looking to get their cut.

Cyberluddite: I posted this in the other Prop 8 thread today, but I think I'll cut-and-paste it here since it strikes at an issue near and dear to Mittens' heart. I have a proposal which I would think any Prop 8 supporter would find to be legally permissible, since it relies on their own arguments. My proposal is this: I hereby propose an amendment to the California Constitution invalidating Mormon marriages in this state.

As polygamists for decades (even though they no longer engage in polygamy and now want to be treated as "normal" people), Mormons historically have shown a complete disregard for the traditional marriage of one man and one woman. Plus, I gotta say--and I hope this doesn't sound bigoted--Mormons as a group make me uncomfortable, and I don't share their values or approve of their lifestyle choices. For example, they're always pumping out housefuls of kids (an environmentally irresponsible practice), riding around on bikes while wearing white dress shirts and black ties and knocking on my door to disturb me while I'm relaxing at home, all for the purpose of trying to push a copy of the Book of Mormon on me, wearing funny but unAmerican sacred underwear, never drinking coffee or booze like normal Americans do, posthumously baptizing Holocaust victims as Mormons against their descendants' will, etc. These are not traditional American values, and I do not approve of these people profaning my traditional marriage by claiming to be married like normal people. Not to mention that these Mormons are always pushing their Mormon agenda on the rest of us and trying to recruit others--including even impressionable young children, shamefully enough--to share their Mormon lifestyle choice.

Of course, as the biggest backers of Prop 8 in California, Mormons have signaled to the world that it's acceptable for me to openly advocate discrimination against groups who don't share my personal values and beliefs, and whose lifestyles I find objectionable or shameful. Even the most p ...

I am going to shamelessly yoink that, modify it, and use it to vex the Baptists. Just lettin' you know.

The majority of Americans support gay marriage. This will only further alienate Romney in the general campaign. So, I approve of his comments today.

propasaurus: If Romney is elected, will 10% of his taxpayer funded salary go directly to the LDS?

I suspect Romney cheats his church out of money just as easily as he cheats at paying taxes.

What unelected Justices overturning the will of the people might look like:

So they'll be unelected judges who cast aside the will of the people - but they'll be your unelected judges who cast aside the will of the people.

"Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage," Romney said. "This decision does not end this fight, and I expect it to go to the Supreme Court. That prospect underscores the vital importance of this election and the movement to preserve our values. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and, as president, I will protect traditional marriage and appoint judges who interpret the Constitution as it is written and not according to their own politics and prejudices."

Translation: Today, the courts disagreed with me and my church and other people who think just like me. I'm going to make it sound like these people - and I - are going to be responsible for "fighting" that, when in actuality, it'll happen without any minding on my part. I'm running for office - so I'm going to sound like I think you who agree with me are morally superior, and you want to vote for me because I'm morally superior. Now let's spit out the standard talking point about this, and I promise to misuse the justice system unmercifully to appoint judges who will rule in my favor (and in the favor of my backers and friends) at my whim - which you are stupid enough to think is your whim, too.

I read it this way: "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and, a president..."

The I realized it's not that far fetched.

James!: Do we want a president who invests so poorly?

Your snark is palpable. And delicious.

James!: Do we want a president who invests so poorly?

I bet he buys his magic shorts retail, too

Romney's lucky the majority doesn't get to vote on what to do with his money.