Michele Bachmann is first GOP presidential candidate to sign pledge banning gay marriage, porn.

[Prosperity]

What I find ironic, is that they want to ban Shari'a law but they want to force their own version of it on the population

GOP talking points are just a WASPy version NewSpeak

it's like black is white, up is down, I mean, it's not even funny any more... it's just head scratchingly bizarre... Here are people that presumably know how to read, tie their own shoes, and brush their teeth, but they've somehow convinced themselves that 1+1=1, maybe 3, maybe 11 but never, ever 2

[deejaydana]

so clearly she's doomed herself by doing this (and she'll also win an amount of like minded adherents who are older/elderly and socially conservative). What I'm unclear about is how this move by her, clearly political suicide but probably honest because it's who she is, allows us to, by extension, classify the GOP entirely as equally unhinged, or intolerant, or unswerving. Is the world that uncomplicated and the party that homogenous? Really?

[NavyDave]

What I find ironic, is that they want to ban Shari'a law but they want to force their own version of it on the population

Really? We do? So where is the part saying we are okay with pedophiles err guys who want a really early May December wedding with girls barely out of training bras, stoning, cutting off hands of criminals (now that would reduce repeat offenders ) beheading infidels and attacking the Jews? Oh wait, its the left that usually bashes Israel.

---------- Post added July-9th-2011 at 12:50 PM ----------

"all forms of pornography"

Obviously kiddie porn and 'forced participation' are already banned. Whats the point of pledging to ban that...

Wrong! You can still see it on Yahoo webcams and places like stickam and until recently WSHH

[Barney B]

so clearly she's doomed herself by doing this (and she'll also win an amount of like minded adherents who are older/elderly and socially conservative). What I'm unclear about is how this move by her, clearly political suicide but probably honest because it's who she is, allows us to, by extension, classify the GOP entirely as equally unhinged, or intolerant, or unswerving.

That's a fair question.

Let's see how her poll numbers move in the coming weeks. We know she's doomed herself with moderates (not that there's many left in the party, and she'd never get their votes anyhow) but has she cost herself votes within the GOP? Particularly in the primaries?

On the other hand, there are plenty of people who think she's really running for a V.P. nomination. And in light of some of the past VP candidates we've seen (from both sides of the aisle), there's enough reason to suspect that she may not be doomed, after all.

[blindlywewander]

I'd vote for Michelle Beadle before I vote for this chick. You may not support certain things, but to sign a pledge like this is social suicide. Women...

[NavyDave]

And if elected, I'm sure she'll have a similar effect on the nation.

Doubtful since Obama has already used the Danny and Vinny approach. The media has to ignore the people who quit looking for a job to keep the unemployment numbers at 9.2% instead of the obvious double digit figures.

[twa]

"Humane protection of women and the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy – our next generation of American children – from human trafficking, sexual slavery, seduction into promiscuity, and all forms of pornography and prostitution, infanticide, abortion and other types of coercion or stolen innocence."

Nope, just ignore that and instead nitpick 1 sentence and twist away the actual meaning into something more convenient. same old same old.

I suppose by your reading this line clearly excludes adult males from the supposed porn ban? :pfft:

pot meet kettle

[NavyDave]

so clearly she's doomed herself by doing this (and she'll also win an amount of like minded adherents who are older/elderly and socially conservative). What I'm unclear about is how this move by her, clearly political suicide but probably honest because it's who she is, allows us to, by extension, classify the GOP entirely as equally unhinged, or intolerant, or unswerving. Is the world that uncomplicated and the party that homogenous? Really?

The left losing it mind for now about somebody taking the socalled moral pledge is funny.

The election is going to be about Obama and the Economy. So get ready for Its the Economy Stupid signs in 2012.

[LadySkinsFan]

If you people who rail against homosexuality and rights were homosexual, you'd get it. Frankly, I have no use for you, just as you have no use for me.

Get a life and stay out of ours. Rights are rights and are not conferred by a majority vote. Otherwise there would be NO rights.

[NoVaSkins21]

Even babes with guns?...is she a commie?

Bless you sir for that contribution.

[twa]

If you people who rail against homosexuality and rights were homosexual, you'd get it. Frankly, I have no use for you, just as you have no use for me.

Get a life and stay out of ours. Rights are rights and are not conferred by a majority vote. Otherwise there would be NO rights.

strangely enough SSM has not been deemed a nationwide right by the courts,nor granted by a vote.....therefore you are asking me for something when I just want to stay out of your life.

[mistertim]

If you people who rail against homosexuality and rights were homosexual, you'd get it. Frankly, I have no use for you, just as you have no use for me.

Get a life and stay out of ours. Rights are rights and are not conferred by a majority vote. Otherwise there would be NO rights.

But, but...they're just trying to save your SOUL, LSF!! They really love you and just want to make sure you are saved!

[Teller]

Not trying to hijack the thread but you did bring it up.

You do know the president still goes to church from time to time, right?

Sorry, I missed that. I thought he was still the only president who was so amazingly popular that he couldn't go -- too much of a distraction.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

Sorry, I missed that. I thought he was still the only president who was so amazingly popular that he couldn't go -- too much of a distraction.

:pfft:

[Teller]

If you people who rail against homosexuality and rights were homosexual, you'd get it. Frankly, I have no use for you, just as you have no use for me.

Get a life and stay out of ours. Rights are rights and are not conferred by a majority vote. Otherwise there would be NO rights.

I'd be OK with civil unions for ALL consenting adults, regardless of preference, or the NUMBER of people involved. But the "you're not one of us, so you can't understand" is a cop out.

Using your logic, you can't post in the space shuttle thread, because you're not an astronaut.

[Mickalino]

Using your logic, you can't post in the space shuttle thread, because you're not an astronaut.

Some people say she's kind of spacy, though. So yea, she can

[DarrellsMyHero28]

Take the word marriage out of the lawbooks. Marriage should be a strictly religious ceremony with no legal ties whatsoever.

Allow everyone to have civil unions that grants all the rights/tax breaks/etc etc. Allow churches to choose who they marry.

Boom.

[Teller]

Take the word marriage out of the lawbooks. Marriage should be a strictly religious ceremony with no legal ties whatsoever.

Allow everyone to have civil unions that grants all the rights/tax breaks/etc etc. Allow churches to choose who they marry.

Boom.

The ONLY problem I see with that (and I agree, btw) is what if one dude has great insurance. He could enter a civil union with 50 other dudes, and his employer would have to cover them under their family plan. As an insurance company, how do you stay in business?

[DarrellsMyHero28]

The ONLY problem I see with that (and I agree, btw) is what if one dude has great insurance. He could enter a civil union with 50 other dudes, and his employer would have to cover them under their family plan. As an insurance company, how do you stay in business?

Eh, I don't know about polygamy.

I'm not sure its a widespread enough issue that I'd worry about creating a federal law to allow civil unions for a bunch of people. Personally, were I given the power I'd force my plan upon all 50 states, and I'm not one that usually supports such measures as I do respect the sovereignty of states to do quite a bit of self-governing.

Its only in instances of clear dumbassness like not allowing civil unions for gays that I think the Fed needs to step in and tell them whats up.

ND gets all pissy about this point but I really do see quite a few parallels between the Civil Rights movement and the Gay Rights movement, refusing to grant rights to a group of people based on something they have no control over is un-American, and even if they WERE choosing to be gay (which I steadfastly believe is false) who gives a flying ****? I sure as hell don't want to see what two dudes are doing in their bedroom (and thanks for the mental image of 50 guys in a civil union ya ******* ) but its none of my business or the business of any local/state/federal official.

[twa]

The ONLY problem I see with that (and I agree, btw) is what if one dude has great insurance. He could enter a civil union with 50 other dudes, and his employer would have to cover them under their family plan. As an insurance company, how do you stay in business?

That is not a problem,simply require co-pay for extra dependents.

the mixing of church/state for so long in marriage has made it political suicide to mess with,though I do agree that is the solution for someone with the stones to push it.

[DarrellsMyHero28]

That is not a problem,simply require co-pay for extra dependents.

the mixing of church/state for so long in marriage has made it political suicide to mess with,though I do agree that is the solution for someone with the stones to push it.

I know this is likely an absurdly stupid question, but when someone gets married by a church they still have to get a marriage license and its the license itself that grants the tax benefits and visitation rights correct?

What I'm getting at is, when you say "I do" in a church does that mean anything legally? Clergy members aren't granting tax breaks are they?

[Teller]

Eh, I don't know about polygamy.

I'm not sure its a widespread enough issue that I'd worry about creating a federal law to allow civil unions for a bunch of people. Personally, were I given the power I'd force my plan upon all 50 states, and I'm not one that usually supports such measures as I do respect the sovereignty of states to do quite a bit of self-governing.

Its only in instances of clear dumbassness like not allowing civil unions for gays that I think the Fed needs to step in and tell them whats up.

I personally wouldn't be selective with to whom we grant civil rights. But you know that already.

[Bang]

That is not a problem,simply require co-pay for extra dependents.

the mixing of church/state for so long in marriage has made it political suicide to mess with,though I do agree that is the solution for someone with the stones to push it.

And you can also fall back to the common sense of being able to spot someone trying to rook the system, and dealing with them severely.

It's usually pretty obvious when folks cheat.

~Bang

[Teller]

I think the whole polygamy argument grew out of the ferocity of much of the pro-gay marriage movement. The whole, "you're a bigot/idiot/POS for not supporting marriage between consenting adults." But as it turns out, many gay marriage supporters only want to support certain consenting adults too. The polygamy bit exposed the hypocrisy of their condescention.

[Hunter44]

I know this is likely an absurdly stupid question, but when someone gets married by a church they still have to get a marriage license and its the license itself that grants the tax benefits and visitation rights correct?

What I'm getting at is, when you say "I do" in a church does that mean anything legally? Clergy members aren't granting tax breaks are they?

You are correct. Getting married means nothing until you've paid for the license.