…and this is a 
Newt Gingrich, the man who told his wife he was leaving her as she lay in a hospital bed sick with cancer, has declared that "overturning Prop 8 is an outrageous disrespect for our Constitution and for the majority of people of the United States who believe marriage is the union of husband and wife" on his website. Unfortunately for him, he left comments open, and is on the receiving end of a lot of contempt for his hypocrisy.
My favorite so far is "Which one of your multiple marriages was the most sacred to you?".
I'm also rather peeved that Gingrich's website has the url of newt.org. He has deprived some worthy member of the Salamandridae of a good and memorable web address! Not to mention the dishonor he's already brought to the good name of the Pleurodelinae. I can't believe that guy is mumbling about running for president again — I'd rather see a real mud puppy in the office.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
August 11, 2010 10:40 AM
agreed.
Now, this is a freakin newt!
Posted by: vanharris
|
August 11, 2010 10:44 AM
This guy sounds like a Christian exercising his objective morality.
Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort
|
August 11, 2010 10:44 AM
You can keep your newts, personally this is my favorite amphibian!
Posted by: daveau
|
August 11, 2010 10:46 AM
She turned me into a Newt!
Posted by: Mr.Nerdz
|
August 11, 2010 10:46 AM
I for one welcome our new Salamandridae overlords!
Wait. It's a guy who states that heterosexual marriage is a sacred union, and defiles common decency (and insults his precious "One man, one woman" by making it "One man, and whatever woman he likes at the time") by being a total assholes?
Ah well, at least he's got no chance.
Posted by: oihorse
|
August 11, 2010 10:50 AM
Wow, that response to Newt is epic. I shall file that away for future use.
Posted by: Bodach
|
August 11, 2010 10:51 AM
He may well have a chance, Mr. Nerdz; all he has to do is get behind repealing some constitutional amendments and propose a few others to bring in the tea baggers and other nutjobs.
Ack: political rage does not go well with morning coffee.
Posted by: daveau
|
August 11, 2010 10:52 AM
I'd say that about any one of the potential Republican presidential contenders. But one of those morons will stand a chance. And Newt is probably the top of that list, since he can tie himself to the glory days.
Posted by: raven
|
August 11, 2010 10:53 AM
IIRC, Newt converted to Catholicism to marry wife number 3.
This means he is now owned by the antichrist aka known as the Pope in the church of satan.
According to fundie xian mythology anyway. Since they are all hypocrits, they would still vote for him. He does fit the fundie leadership requirements well, a vaguely humanoid toad.
Posted by: James F
|
August 11, 2010 10:54 AM
I could admonish Mr. Gingrich as follows:
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
Matthew 7:5 KJV
However, that would incorrectly imply that there was something even a little wrong about gay people wanting to get married in the eyes of the law.
Posted by: Mr Ed
|
August 11, 2010 10:54 AM
Newt Baby,
The cool thing about our system of government is that it was intelligently designed to protect the minority from the majority. Just because 87% of the voters in Anytown USA think it is OK to beat the homeless guy to death for fun doesn't make it right. Kind of a wild example but if you think about it depriving some one of life or the right to marry just because the majority says so is just varying degrees of the same thing.
Posted by: Robert H
|
August 11, 2010 10:55 AM
What impresses me isn't that Newt is such a hypocrite-he's a politician after all. What I am enthralled by is that the Christian Right hasn't thrown him under the Sunday School bus. So much for their vaunted morality.
Posted by: tnordloh
|
August 11, 2010 10:55 AM
We need gays to get married, so they can breathe some class back into the institution. With divorce rates of, what, 50%, I really don't get how it is still called a sacred institution.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 11, 2010 10:57 AM
Too bad we don't have a test on constitutional law that presidential candidates must take and pass before they can run. Especially with questions like the ability of the majority to take away rights of the minority. I think Newt needs a refresher course...or twenty.
Posted by: Kevpod
|
August 11, 2010 10:58 AM
PZ, of course you're right on. But a period at the end of the sentence already closed with a question mark and quotation marks?
Honestly, sometimes it seems as though you're trying to make your posts ugly with bad punctuation.
This kind of thing would get red marks on a high school essay, and it crops up in virtually every post here these days, making them hard to read. Standard punctuation, please!
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
August 11, 2010 10:59 AM
"IIRC, Newt converted to Catholicism to marry wife number 3."
So Newt's will sell his strong religious convictions for some pussy?
Yeah, real strong moral leader there.
Posted by: daveau
|
August 11, 2010 11:00 AM
Things are really getting rough on those comments. They've resorted to calling each other Bozo. "I'm not the Bozo, you're the Bozo." Fine intellectual debate right there.
Posted by: randydudek
|
August 11, 2010 11:01 AM
I like to think that a part of the reason these hypocrites hate the thought of gay marriage so much is the fear that the "gay divorce rate" will prove to be a lot lower than the current 50ish%.
But then that short changes them out of some of their good ole' fashion babble-driven hatred.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
August 11, 2010 11:01 AM
@Nerd of Redhead
Newt KNOWS, he just doesn't CARE because by raping the constitution and taking a dump on decency he can claw his way back into power. I don't just disagree with politics, the man is personally repugnant.
Still, good to know that Cartman was able to get some level of success when he grew up.
Posted by: gussnarp
|
August 11, 2010 11:02 AM
You know what bugs me? People talking about the judges ruling as if it is the violation, whether of the constitution or of civil rights. I heard a clip on the radio of some blow-hard yesterday giving a speech in which he said "when a judge with a stroke of a pen can take away your civil right to vote something is wrong." And that's the language these people are hearing, the only language. And it's wrong. They had the right to vote, but the constitution has to trump a simple majority vote for a very good reason. It helps to protect the minority. It's crucial. And someone has to be the arbiter of the constitution, and thats the judiciary. Get over it people, this is not a violation of the constitution, it's a perfect example of the constitution doing its job. Appeal if you want, but no one has disenfranchised you or violated anything. What's wrong is that many states, including California, allow their constitution to be amended by a simple majority. Get just over 50% of the people who turn out to vote to go your way, and you can write hate into your state constitution. Seriously, I'm all for popular vote, but constitutional amendments should require a super-majority. And maybe even a super-majority of eligible voters, rather than of turn out.
Posted by: Sajanas
|
August 11, 2010 11:02 AM
Everything you need to know about Newt Gingrich you can learn from his Speaker for the House portrait. Where most of the other Speakers had very formal, dark portraits that matched nicely to the dark wood of the House, Gingrich has this bright blue portrait, with multicultural children playing in the mall in the background while he holds the Contract With American and offers his hand. He tries to make himself look like a man of the people, but he comes off as cheap and fraudulent, like a used car dealer, who has a contract that is so good, you should just sign in right now, before the great deal vanishes.
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM, CR
|
August 11, 2010 11:04 AM
A guy in a suit
Whose name is Newt
With expertise in marriage
(He found it nice
To marry thrice!)
Is trying to disparage
The lives of gays
In many ways--
It seems, upon reflection
He touts his views
On network news
While pondering election.
He's not too proud
To goad the crowd
To whom he fawns and panders;
It's what he does.
I wish he was
Like other salamanders.
Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold
|
August 11, 2010 11:05 AM
You have a problem with correct punctuation ?
Posted by: randydudek
|
August 11, 2010 11:05 AM
@Sajanas
Used car dealer. Amazing analogy.
Posted by: Evolving Squid
|
August 11, 2010 11:12 AM
You, at least, got better.
Posted by: EboTebo
|
August 11, 2010 11:13 AM
A newt nor salamander is he. As stated,though,not a toad either. He's more of a slang waste product, known to myself and others as a turd!!
Posted by: mothra
|
August 11, 2010 11:21 AM
@22 (the esteemed cuttlefish) I was expecting philander(er)somewhere near the last line.
--
I for one, would like to see the Newt back in politics. The three way (debate) between Newt, Pawlenty and Palin would be comedy gold.
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk
|
August 11, 2010 11:27 AM
True, and he had marriages #1 and #2 annulled in order to do it.I guess that answers the question about which of his 3 marriages he considers most sacred.
Posted by: Finch
|
August 11, 2010 11:36 AM
It says something about my variety of nerdiness that my contempt for Newt Gingrich, which is long-standing, disappears in less than half a second with the thought of "It's a leopleurodon Charlie, a MAGICAL leopleurodon."
I guess it just means that I know on some level that the republicans are really just trying to stick a banana in the country's collective ear. And then rob us blind.
Posted by: momkat
|
August 11, 2010 11:36 AM
Man, if an extra period gets your panties in such a bunch, what must the moral hypocrisy of the Newtman do to you?!.
Posted by: tytalus
|
August 11, 2010 11:44 AM
Re: #20
Conservatives like Newt know this, as they demonstrate every time they side with the judiciary when it suits their interests. It's only trampling on the Constitution or railing about 'activist judges' when it's the ones they don't like. What? More hypocrisy? I would never have expected! :)
Posted by: Vicki, Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief
|
August 11, 2010 11:45 AM
I don't like Newt's hypocrisy either, but frankly, those views would be equally distasteful and harmful from someone who was still on his first marriage. The problem isn't that he's divorced, it's that he's spreading and trying to legislate hatred.
I am glad to be living happily with my partner of 25 years, but the "happily" is the key point; if it had turned out, somewhere along the line, that we weren't suited and couldn't fix things, staying together would have been bowing to values we don't share.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
August 11, 2010 11:45 AM
"Man, if an extra period gets your panties in such a bunch, what must the moral hypocrisy of the Newtman do to you?!. "
I think an extra period wouldn't so much bunch panties as chaff
Posted by: Brian, Defender of Tone Trolls
|
August 11, 2010 11:54 AM
They mostly come at night. Mostly.
Oh wait! Wrong newt.
Posted by: Doc
|
August 11, 2010 12:02 PM
Kevpod @15
Since you are the expert on punctuation, could you please tell me when it became OK to put ending puncuation (like question marks and periods) inside the quotation marks? When I learned to write (on papyrus), these went outside the quotation.
Posted by: charley
|
August 11, 2010 12:03 PM
I like the punctuation. The period closes the statement "My favorite so far is..." The question mark is for the quote itself, which is a question. How is this hard to read?
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
August 11, 2010 12:03 PM
This man has the internet savvy of, well, a newt. Remember when he allowed his wedding gift registry to be open to random searchers?
Read the linked article - it's unbelievable. Venal AND stupid - I'd say the man has a bright future in politics.
Posted by: SteveM
|
August 11, 2010 12:04 PM
Is it strange that I get the impression that the opponents of gay marriage believe that the only reason men marry women is because they can't marry men. That is the only "threat to traditional marriage" I can think of: that all the closeted married men will suddenly divorce their wives and marry their secret male lovers. It's almost like they think that everybody is really gay and the only reason we mate heterosexually is by stigmatizing homosexuality.
Posted by: bcoppola
|
August 11, 2010 12:09 PM
Comments are still open. Newt and whatever brain-dead supporters show up are still getting hammered. Go join the fun while it lasts! I did.
And Cuttlefish, you really should post that verse there.
Posted by: Zeno
|
August 11, 2010 12:17 PM
As raven pointed out, Gingrich is a Catholic now. And Reginald observed that Newt's first two marriages no longer exist because he had them annulled (the super-effective post hoc Catholic version of divorce). However, I have two more items:
(a) Newt's current hyper-Catholic wife was his mistress (or one of his mistresses) during his marriage of wife #2. I guess she used to go to confession often.
(b) Newt is fawned upon by right-wing Catholic media as a trophy convert who is living testimony to the power of God's love (and, apparently, his willingness to use Catholic mistresses to ensnare libertines).
Newt and the current Mrs. Gingrich were interviewed on EWTN (a right-wing Catholic network) and Mrs. Gingrich simperingly explained how she took Newt to mass for several years before he converted. Even while they were in an illicit relationship? The smarmy interviewer was kind enough not to ask.
See my recent post on the topic for the video.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
August 11, 2010 12:17 PM
There is no Standard Punctuation; there are various standards and conventions, depending.
In the USA, like it or not, 'standard' means putting periods and commas (only) inside the quotemarks to end a sentence or clause. If one is quoting a question, the qm goes inside; if quoting a statement as part of a question, it goes outside.
"I have a problem," said Clem.
Clem said, "I have a problem."
Clem said, "What's your problem?"
Did Clem say, "I have a problem"?
I agree that PZ's period is superfluous.
Posted by: daveau
|
August 11, 2010 12:19 PM
No, don't. He'll steal it, quote mine it, and use it in a campaign song.
Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold
|
August 11, 2010 12:23 PM
Sven,
Try thinking about how the sentence would read if something was added after the quotes. Then ask yourself how you could tell whether was was added belonged the that sentence, or the following one.
If you omit the fullstop there would be no way of knowing. The question mark inside the quotes is not performing a role in the punctuation of the sentence as a whole, only in the part of the sentence inside the quotes. Without the fullstop there is no end to the sentence.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
August 11, 2010 12:24 PM
@40
That story is less of Christ and more of Gilgamesh.
Clearly Newt should have converted to the Church of Lady Ishtar
Posted by: dnebdal.myopenid.com
|
August 11, 2010 12:28 PM
@doc, 35:
The sentence parses as "My favourite is X."
X happens to be a quoted question, while the full sentence is a statement.
The alternatives seem to be:
1) My favourite is "X?".
2) My favourite is "X"?
3) My favourite is "X".
4) My favourite is "X?"
The full statement is not a question, so 2) is misleading.
Since not all statements that can be read as questions can be unambiguously identified as such, the question mark is clearly part of the quote: We can remove 3) as an alternative.
Alternative 4) doesn't have ending punctuation for the full sentence- imagine if there were a few more words:
My favourite is "X?" and the rest.
Why should removing the three last words drop the period?
It strikes me that this is a fairly computer-programmer-like way of viewing it: Anything inside quotation marks is an isolated unit, and punctuation-wise independent from what's outside the quotation marks.
Posted by: Doc
|
August 11, 2010 12:33 PM
Sven
Thanks for the explanation. However, I still have a problem. Using that logic, and I don't mean to suggest you're wrong, this would be perfectly acceptable:
Did Clem say, "What's your problem?"?
Also, Matt has a point. How do you know when the sentence ends in that situation? If the punctuation were always outside the quotes, as I learned it, there wouldn't be any confusion.
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
August 11, 2010 12:37 PM
"when a judge with a stroke of a pen can take away your civil right to vote something is wrong."
Oh boo fucking hoo. We have people in most states who currently don't have the right to enter into legal marriage with the person they love, and that's supposedly trumped by your "right" not to have your vote negated? As if I haven't had my vote negated in, oh, almost EVERY election I've ever voted in.
"What's wrong is that many states, including California, allow their constitution to be amended by a simple majority. "
A-fucking-men. You need a supermajority to build a library or a convention center, but only 50.1% to take rights away from your fellow citizens. Sounds unconstitutional (and dare I say it, un-American?) to me.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
August 11, 2010 12:38 PM
I am not (necessarily) defending the logic of the convention, just explicating it. If your op-ed is accepted at the NY Times, or your novel by an American publisher, it will be copy-edited to follow these conventional rules. Fact.
That said, were the passage to continue beyond the quoted question there would either be a comma added after the qm (and inside the quotes) to set off the next clause, or a capital letter denoting the start of next sentence.
Clem said, "What's your problem?," and Jake answered, "Fuck off."
Clem said, "What's your problem?" Nobody said anything in response.
Posted by: gussnarp
|
August 11, 2010 12:47 PM
A nice cartoon today on just this topic.
Posted by: rocketboy
|
August 11, 2010 12:50 PM
Rey Fox..."We have people in most states who currently don't have the right to enter into legal marriage with the person they love, and that's supposedly trumped by your "right" not to have your vote negated?"
Humm.. I never knew that "love" was the only prerequisite for marriage.
Regardless, I'm with you. Let's screw the popular vote, because they are all idiots, racists, homophobes, and fundies right? Unless you agree with me, you don't matter, amirite?
But I am with you that 50.001% to change a constitution is quite stupid.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
August 11, 2010 12:50 PM
Thread Synopsis: "Newt's a douche; let's talk about punctuation instead."
Pharyngula, how do I love thee?
Posted by: NewEnglandBob
|
August 11, 2010 12:53 PM
Keep it simple:
Newt Gingrich: go fuck yourself!
Posted by: Andrew Hall
|
August 11, 2010 12:55 PM
I'm not saying all homophobic men are secretly gay, but I'm not not saying it either.
http://laughinginpurgatory.blogspot.com/2010/08/are-homophobic-men-just-repressed-gays.html
Posted by: woodsong
|
August 11, 2010 1:01 PM
"newt gingrich" sounds like it should be the name of a skin disease of salamanders.
Posted by: Loreo
|
August 11, 2010 1:02 PM
"Outrageous disrespect for our Constitution"?
Would that be the part of our Constitution that defines marriage as for heteros only?
I can't find that text. Would you find that for me, Newt? Also, while you're in there, would you read the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the 14th Amendment? I've heard they might have something to do with the case at hand.
Posted by: dnebdal.myopenid.com
|
August 11, 2010 1:03 PM
@doc 46:
That would indeed be the logical way to quote that, yes. There's a difference between these:
He said "you did"? [Asking about a statement]
He said "you did?"? [Asking about a question]
He said "you did?". [Stating about a question]
He said "you did". [Stating about a statement]
I know I'm torturing the language a bit for that example, but it should be possible to come up with more plausible examples for each.
Sven: Isn't the "X?,"-construction both uglier and less logical? Neither of which disproves your point about standards, of course. Not that there aren't differing standards here; there seems to be more support for the alternative version I prefer in British publications and some scientific journals.
I seem to be in a distinct minority in insisting that a question mark inside a quote shouldn't be used to end a sentence, though. I can live with that, but it introduces meaningless ambiguities (and breaks the idea that a quote is an independent unit). Consider:
Yesterday, someone shouted "Why are you still here?" Annie wrote in her book.
The lack of a comma after the question mark is a fairly weak marker for "new sentence starts after this".
Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death
|
August 11, 2010 1:03 PM
Matt Penfold
The convention of using a capital letter to begin a new independent clause is sufficient. But, yes, one can almost always come up with an example in which the intended meaning is obscured due to a particular punctuation convention. The system isn't perfect.
Doc
Generally, style guidelines would dictate that there is no reason to apply the second question mark. Context is supposed to compensate.
Also, fuck Newt.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawk8nuEGr2AboPw3B5JlVHLruh87cSf2gi4
|
August 11, 2010 1:08 PM
Clem said, "What's your problem?," and Jake answered, "Fuck off."
whoa whoa wait. Question mark and then a comma inside the quote? I've never seen that before on either side of the pond. You can't have the comma with the question mark. If Clem's quote were not a question, but ended in a period, then yes, you use a comma instead of a period. So:
Clem said, "I don't have a problem," and Jake said, "I thought so."
If you were listing questions, you'd have to violate U.S. standard and put the comma outside the quote:
Some famous advertising slogans are "American Express: Don't leave home without it," "Wouldn't you really rather have a Buick?", "Where's the beef?", and "Does she or doesn't she? Only her hairdresser knows for sure."
I think PZ's statement makes sense without the period, but using it ensures his meaning is explicit.
What I want to know is whether you're supposed to put a semi-colon inside the quote mark.
Clem said "I don't have a problem"; Jake already knew that.
Clem said "I don't have a problem;" Jake already knew that.
They both look wrong.
-- Lauren Ipsum
Posted by: dnebdal.myopenid.com
|
August 11, 2010 1:18 PM
I would clearly put the semicolon outside, since it's not part of what you're quoting - but that hardly answers your question (since you'd probably prefer an answer that's correct according to the most common rules).
Posted by: elnauhual
|
August 11, 2010 1:19 PM
An update from México.
The decicion of the autorities for Mexico City to allow gay marriage , was challenged by several of the more conservtive states.
But a few day ago the supreme court of Justice, overtuned the challenge and declared thar gay marriage in Mexico city are valid for all the country.
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/national_world&id=7594840
So far 320 gay marriages has been made.
note: the population of Mexico city.. is bigger than 50% of the states of México.. that is why it is soo important.
The decision has been critizised by Cardenal Norberto Rivera... but we must remeber that Norberto Rivera has been cited in US courts for protecting pederasts... ( on is the notorius Ruiz Maciel)
Also, one of mos conservative the states, Guanajuato, recently has been denounces because several women, mainly from poor comunities, are in jail for having spontaneuosu abortions.. and the were sentenced to more than 20 years.
http://www.laht.com/article.asp?CategoryId=14091&ArticleId=360883
In Mexico city abortion is legal, and most states allow then under some circuntances.
In the last twelve years, since the obtain the presidence of México, the convervatives have been trying to overturn several advances in the civilr rights area.
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM, CR
|
August 11, 2010 1:33 PM
I've written a little song about my deep and abiding affection for Newt Gingrich, and my plans to become his "spouse #4".
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2010/08/mr-and-mr-newt.html
A taste:
I’ve been watching the queers at the courthouse
Where they pose for the cameras, and kiss
And although I’m not gay, there is one man today
Who I’d join in connubial bliss:
Oh, I wanna marry Newt Gingrich—
He’s perfection in only one man
I wanna marry Newt Gingrich,
So I’m thanking the courts that I can!
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
August 11, 2010 1:45 PM
Andrew Hall #53,
If not secretly gay, then probably misogynistic. I can think of a few straight strict genderists who cannot accept anything other than two rigid genders, male and female, that line up perfectly (in their minds) with anatomical appearance (never mind all the variation that they have not seen) getting all fussy over Teh Gheys, too. They wouldn't want men becoming women, women becoming men, women acting like men or looking like men, men acting like women or looking like women, and men or women acting or looking like neither men nor women.
Posted by: psycchick
|
August 11, 2010 1:50 PM
Lorio, you took the words right out of my mouth.
*Reminding myself to be cautious of the Punctuation Police*
Posted by: natural cynic
|
August 11, 2010 2:06 PM
It take only 50% + 1 to amend the constitution in California while it takes a 2/3 supermajority in the legislature to raise taxes. Wacky. Totally unworkable.
Posted by: SteveM
|
August 11, 2010 2:08 PM
Whether Newt's 3 marriages is a sign of hypocricy or not, I wonder what his view of the courts overturning Chicago's ban on gun ownership. I do not know, but I'd be willing to bet that he was all in favor of that bit of "judicial activism" denying the people to vote their will to deny some a constitutional right. That is the real hypocricy of his statement.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
August 11, 2010 2:34 PM
I stand gratefully corrected.
Posted by: Yoav
|
August 11, 2010 2:45 PM
"It doesn't matter what I do," he answered. "People need to hear what I have to say. There's no one else who can say what I can say. It doesn't matter what I live."
This quote reported in an interview with wife #2 just say everything you need to know about that sleazeball.
Posted by: gussnarp
|
August 11, 2010 2:50 PM
@natural cynic - Isn't the 2/3 to raise taxes thing the result of a constitutional amendment passed by 50% + 1? So much talk about California's financial problems ignores this elephant in the room. You can't limit the ability to raise taxes but not the ability of the people to mandate spending.
Posted by: mattand08
|
August 11, 2010 3:16 PM
@ SteveM #68:
Thank you! I thought the same thing. I'm so sick of hearing that fucking "judicial activism" mantra. It's temper tantrum meme for conservatives when a court case doesn't go their way.
Posted by: Aquaria
|
August 11, 2010 4:31 PM
Regardless, I'm with you. Let's screw the popular vote, because they are all idiots, racists, homophobes, and fundies right? Unless you agree with me, you don't matter, amirite?
o hai.
U r wrong dumbass.
Fuck you and that pile of straw you're kicking.
The people can vote on anything they please--as long as it doesn't violate the Constitution.
Or did you not learn about the separation of powers and the checks and balances?
kthxbye
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
August 11, 2010 4:48 PM
The mud puppy, Necturus, is a proteid, not a salamandrid.
Alan Keyes has said so in words almost as explicit as yours. Obviously, he's gay and believes everyone is like him.
It is (because it happens to be at the end of a paragraph), but it still helps – enough so that I'd have written it, too; see comment 43.
Posted by: KG
|
August 11, 2010 4:59 PM
ZenoAnd really, the question is so obvious it practically asks itself: "Did you fuck before or after?"
Posted by: daveau
|
August 11, 2010 5:11 PM
OMNEG! David Marjanović, did you just invoke fucking Alan Keys? The crazy that comes out of that man's mouth.
I recall when Obama ran for US Senate and no Illinois Republican would run against him. So they recruited Alan Keyes. I became an admirer of Obama during their debates, not just because he debated Keyes seriously and intelligently, but also because he could keep a straight face and not roll his eyes (a la Gore) while Keyes went off the deep end. Funniest thing you ever saw.
Posted by: SteveM
|
August 11, 2010 5:57 PM
re 50:
It isn't a prerequisite at all. That isn't the point nitwit. The point is the sex of the people applying for a government privilege should not be a prerequisite either. Imagine if driver's licenses could only be granted to men or voting privileges. Whether marriage is a right or a privilege, the overriding right is that it be granted (or protected) equally to all citizens. Limiting it to male/female couples is inequitable and therefore unconstitutional.
Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification
|
August 11, 2010 6:10 PM
It's the death throes of a particularly vile aspect of the patriarchy and they know it, which is why they've begun to run out of reasons that even sound lucid anymore. They just can't defend the idea of marriage as a patriarchal institution that enforces gender conformity as strongly in a world where people view marriage as a union based in love and the creation of a legal family and "aren't gays icky" just doesn't work to keep the dissonance going as well as it used to.
Given that they themselves have taken the benefits of the "new" version of marriage, as unions of love that can be broken when consent to keep them going fades (for whatever reason) as evidenced by their multiple marriages, they can STFU forever about the vile version of "traditional marriage" they'd like to see us all "return" to.
Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies
|
August 11, 2010 6:26 PM
Some dumbass up above:
Riiiiiight.
Instead of thinking about those gross, icky gheys, let's think about the desegregation of public schools which happened after the Supreme Court ruled on Brown v. Board of Education.
The general public did not want schools to be desegregated. In fact, elected leaders did whatever they could to keep schools segregated along racial lines:
and
Wikipedia
The Supreme Court decision knocked down the concept of "separate but equal" (Plessy v. Ferguson) and was incredibly unpopular at the time. If the issue of equal protection and equal access had been left up to the voters, you can bet your sweet ass that they would have voted to keep schools segregated.
My point in comparing the marriage equality struggle with the civil rights movement of the '50's and '60's is that the "will of the people" is often wronwrongwrong. There's no ignoring the fact that throughout American history we have denied various groups equal rights because of our petty biases. It's not right, it's not just, and it's not (*gasp!*) democratic.
Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas
|
August 11, 2010 6:48 PM
Newt Gingrich is a hypocritical toad.
Unlike some politicians, he doesn't even have the excuse of being genuinely stupid. He's an intelligent guy: but he's also an utter dick, with the moral and intellectual integrity of pond-slime. (What kind of human being cheats on his wife while she's dying of cancer, and then builds political capital out of blathering about the sanctity of traditional marriage? And still manages to get people to take him seriously?) And he bears a large share of responsibility for moulding the Republican Party and the American conservative movement into the intellectually bankrupt, sectarian, reality-divorced wingnut brigade it is rapidly becoming.
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter
|
August 11, 2010 7:42 PM
#77
Walton, many years ago, I noticed that the right-wingers in this country only care that their moral and political leaders say things they agree with; what they actually do is usually irrelevant. I first noticed this in Phyllis Schlafly, who warbled on about "women shouldn't work, they belonging in the home" while she ran her Eagle Forum. Uhh, Phyllis isn't that working?However, you must remember, as Xtians, they also believe in that bumper sticker: "I am not Perfect; Just Forgiven". To which I respond "And until you are perfect, don't tell me how to run my life!"
Posted by: ckitching
|
August 11, 2010 8:41 PM
Allowing gays to marry may be the only way to save marriage from lizardmen like Newt who are destroying the sacred institution of marriage!
Posted by: Commissar Claw
|
August 11, 2010 10:10 PM
To pile even more on Newt's venality. Newt's sister is gay and is very active in the Human Rights Campaign.
Posted by: Nick
|
August 11, 2010 10:16 PM
I hope Newt does run for President. Worldwide it will give comedians a fresh source of material. He's too slimy for you Americans to keep all to yourselves.
Are his supporters Newtonians?
As for gay marriage, other then those below legal age, or below the legal test for being able to understand contractual arrangements, or those who are too closely related to their intended spouse, or those who are already married, are there any other groups of people who are prevented from marrying?
Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies
|
August 11, 2010 10:30 PM
Nick:
Nope. As long as the couple is consenting adults (and in most states, of opposite gender), it doesn't matter.
The last big marriage battle was Loving v. Virginia in 1967, which forced states to overturn laws banning interracial marriages.
Posted by: Stardrake
|
August 11, 2010 11:52 PM
Walton @77:
I object to your characterization of Newt as pond slime.
Pond slime serves a vital ecological purpose. The Gin-grinch does not.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
August 11, 2010 11:55 PM
@81
Currently married people.
Either attempting poly or because the last marriage is still on the books by technicality.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/K2PNji0at.txAjzTShOlxwLuFcVVFwbnng--#bd813
|
August 12, 2010 1:44 AM
I liked his novel '1945.' About the only thing he ever did that I did like.
Posted by: Samantha Vimes
|
August 12, 2010 8:51 PM
@#81
There are fewer limits than that. In some states, you don't have to be legally an adult to get married. I think the youngest age allowed is one state that will let a 14 year old marry with parental consent. And as for being intelligent enough to understand contracts? No state that I know of checks on whether a person is profoundly mentally challenged when they want to marry.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 12, 2010 9:07 PM
I'm sure in several states the laws are still on the books. But unenforceable due to the SCOTUS Decision. Personally the state legislatures should be reviewing every law every 20 years or so. And failure to remove unenforceable laws results in automatic impeachment to every state representative/senator not voting to do so. Also, non-balanced budgets start with legislative salaries and office expenses to balance said budget...Posted by: Citizen Z
|
August 12, 2010 10:04 PM
Funny you should mention that. From the Wikipedia page on anti-miscegenation laws: "Nonetheless, it took South Carolina until 1998 and Alabama until 2000 to officially amend their states' constitutions to remove language prohibiting miscegenation. In the respective referendums, 62% of voters in South Carolina and 59% of voters in Alabama voted to remove these laws." (emphasis added) Striking, isn't it?
Posted by: Nick
|
August 13, 2010 1:04 AM
Samantha @86
I am thinking of mental incapacity, which I believe in some countries (UK?NZ?) bars a person from marrying. I think it is when, due to a mental handicap, they are officially a 'ward of the state', and are prevented from entering into contracts, marrying etc. I was not sure whether it is the same in the States, though I would imagine so.
Posted by: bebo bane
|
August 14, 2010 3:32 PM
Are there not over 11 million unemployed in this country? I wonder if this would be a voting constituency? If so I think Newt could kiss it goodbye. What a dumbass.