…for destroying a traditional marriage. That or they’re extremely snarky.
You be the judge.
I just heard about this news story. Whaddabitch.
I vote snarky. And I love it.
Because of course it’s not her fault; or maybe she is right now asking God for forgiveness for straying (and to smite her heathen enemies, please, while you’re in the neighborhood) so that she can come back and say that she has asked God for forgiveness and everyone should just get off her back, dammit!
Seems to work for Newt, anyway.
Roddy
I think it is distasteful and it does the GLBT community no good.
They just took the anti-gay contingent’s argument and rubbed their noses in it.
Brilliant!
How is it distasteful?
So silence would be a better strategy?
Silence lets those assholes keep using the whole idea of protecting marriage as a sacred heterosexual union. Silence is going to be seen as a tacit agreement that there’s something about heterosexual marriage that is threatened by exapanding the institution of marriage to include SSM. Silence allows people to keep from thinking that the only legitimate threat to any marriage are the people within the marriage and whether they remain committed to making their relationship work.
Keeping the hypocrisy in the public eye will at least challenge the illogic these assholes bring to the SSM debate, and may even get some of the fence sitters to use their brains as something other than a way to keep the vacuum in their heads from sucking their eyes into their skulls.
It’s a slim chance, but it’s a Hell of a lot more likely to do the LGBT community good than silence would.
Brilliant.
Snarky in a totally correct and appropriate way.
Hahaha, awesome.
Exquisite snark.
The “destruction of traditional marriage” has been underway for a long time by allegedly “upstanding citizens” engaging in adultery, domestic abuse, gold-digging, marriages-of-convenience, trophy-wifing, deadbeat parenting, etc. If one of those champions of “values” is exposed as living contrary to those values, I’m not above mocking them.
Yeah. **Stay out of other people’s sex lives **and continue to champion your own cause by not capitalizing on other people’s misery.
She has a child.
So do a lot of the gay couples who’s discrimination she is trying to codify into law.
Can’t take it? Don’t dish it. Or at least keep those closets clean.
Well, then - maybe she should have thought about her child (and her marriage) before fucking around with someone outside of her marriage.
Let’s not forget that Koch et al were making a living by championing their own cause by attempting to legislate other peoples’ morality. The irony, it burns.
But then they lose the moral high ground.
If the opposition sees no problem with regulating everyone else’s sex lives, telling people to stay out of other people’s sex lives is fucking two-faced. These people started the mixing up with sex lives and public policy. ** Let them eat their cake, every last bitter crumb of it.** Including being mocked when they can’t live up to the standards they claim are universal.
The LGBT lobby aren’t the ones who have done a damned thing to hurt that kid. You’re blaming the wrong people, there. And one might be tempted to suggest you think about who’s the bigger assholes in general.
I thought the argument of right wing bigots was that gay marriage ruins straight marriage because it encourages straight people to stray and engage in homosexual sex, not opposite-sex sex.
Eh. I love it, but it IS opportunistic. More worthy of a snarky party joke than a newspaper.
From a PR standpoint, they’re not doing the right thing. Leave that to the commentators to mock the failed marriage. Or the letter writers to the news. Or ___. But not an organization.
When I worked on campaigns, including the one that led to this decision, this is something I would’ve said. For every letter I signed or time I was interviewed, I would’ve never said something like that. Not at all.
Nevermind. Upon closer inspection, it appears this letter was from one person who didn’t have the authority to speak on behalf of anyone but himself. This puts it in the “one person wrote a clever letter” box, not “a gay rights organization acted rude” box.
To be perfectly honest, as someone who cannot legally be married to their spouse in their own home state, I don’t give a whit about the moral high ground. Maybe the snark won’t win anyone new over to our cause, but absurdity needs to be ridiculed. At least, sometimes.
And I also don’t give a whit if she has a kid. As Miss Elizabeth pointed out, so do many gay couples. Having children doesn’t preclude you from having your narrow-minded ignorance thrown back in your face.