Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  no offense!

MD State Sen. Nancy Jacobs Hopes Faggot Colleagues Don’t Take Her Marriage Discrimination ‘Personally’

We all love our gay friends in the House and the Senate. I hope and pray that this does not get personal and does not get taken personally.

—Maryland’s State Senate Minority Leader Nancy Jacobs, the Republican leading the party’s opposition to the same-sex marriage bill, evidently wouldn’t take it personally if a colleague introduced a bill barring women from divorce [via]

By:           JD
On:           Feb 23, 2011
Tagged: , ,

  • 36 Comments
    • alan brickman
      alan brickman

      you’re just trash!! people acuse men of doing this to be closet…why don’t women who oppose equal rights for gays get the same treatment??….

      Feb 23, 2011 at 7:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • royinkc
      royinkc

      i hope she doesn’t take this personally but she is a dumb cunt

      Feb 23, 2011 at 7:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David
      David

      Fuck you Nancy Jacobs.

      Feb 23, 2011 at 7:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mr. Enemabag Jones
      Mr. Enemabag Jones

      We all love our gay friends in the House and the Senate.

      So what? Everyone outside the Seante and House can GFT?

      If she fake-smiled any harder, her head would crack.

      Feb 23, 2011 at 7:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • kernelt
      kernelt

      You bet your ass we take it personally, It’s someone/my happiness you’re messing with. And I don’t think she deserve her title as Senator, a representative of the people if she just vote without consideration and personal responsibility.

      Feb 23, 2011 at 7:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Shofixti
      Shofixti

      “We all tolerate our second class gay friends in the House and the Senate. I hope and pray that my deliberate efforts to rebuke and legally bar their attempts to marry their partners does not get personal and does not get taken personally.”

      Feb 23, 2011 at 8:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brian Miller
      Brian Miller

      You’re a hateful, ugly, bigoted, dried-out piece of beef jerky, Ms. Jacobs. But I say that in a non-personal way, and I hope you don’t take it personally, because I love you as a person.

      Feb 23, 2011 at 8:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Tommy Marx
      Tommy Marx

      “I have many wonderful gay friends. And just like the niggers I love so dearly, as long as they remember their place, I am more than happy to have lunch with them every few years as long as no one else sees me. Don’t want to give the chinks another reason to be, well, chinks.”

      Feb 23, 2011 at 8:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ealan75
      Ealan75

      Well it’s pretty personal, so I sure take it personally!! and I hope her “gay friends” in the House and Senate do the same!

      Feb 23, 2011 at 8:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Patsy Stoned
      Patsy Stoned

      I wish these politicians would just be honest for once (I know, it’ll never happen). Either tell gay people that you find us inferior and you wish to marginalize us, or admit that you are acting like a bigot to get your anti-gay voters to keep you in office. You don’t treat people you “love” like shit and yes, it IS personal Have fun on the wrong side of history!

      Feb 23, 2011 at 10:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Shannon1981
      Shannon1981

      I hope your “friends” in the Senate call you out for the bigot you are, Ms. Jacobs, and take it VERY personally.

      Feb 23, 2011 at 11:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Harbo
      Harbo

      I hope Sen. Jacobs doesn’t take this personally, but she gives sorry cunts a bad name. Don’t you just love her fake smile?

      Feb 24, 2011 at 12:44 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • a
      a

      what a joke. but you just know there are countless preppy gay repub staffers soothing her clearly aching conscience.

      Feb 24, 2011 at 2:10 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • tjr101
      tjr101

      Wow, at least Sarah Palin doesn’t admit to having any gay friends. This woman is a complete dick!

      Feb 24, 2011 at 2:20 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeffree
      Jeffree

      NancyJacobs won’t have her way. The Wash.Post says that the MD senate voted 25-22 to advance the bill for a final vote Thurs. Jacobs admitted it was expected to pass there. Next stop is House of Delegates where it’s expected to be approved and the Governor has already said he’ll sign it.

      This is good news.

      Feb 24, 2011 at 3:16 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rob Z
      Rob Z

      Remember George Wallace’s shocking racist remarks defending segregation? Someday soon, these bigoted comments about Gays will be characterized the same way. It’s absolutely shocking that any politician in the 21st century could be so ignorant.

      Feb 24, 2011 at 5:57 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeffree
      Jeffree

      Good-ish news in Maryland: state Senate likely to vote favorably on marriage equality today. Nancy Jacobs didn’t prevail, (see post # 15) although she and fellow Republicans are working on amendments to allow some restrictions for religious-based organizations such as churches and adoption agencies.

      Feb 24, 2011 at 8:30 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Tangelo
      Tangelo

      When Civil Unions pass in MD, the next step will be to undue the state’s involvement in Marriage at all. The State should make Civil Unions the standard for all and “Marriage” a religious ceremony between the parties involved and their church binding before no one but their god(s). Since about 50% of marriages fail, many of these people are lying to each other and to their god(s).

      With this change, the divorce rules could also be updated allowing for quicker divorces and less financial carnage. If you divorce within 2 years, only joint assets purchased in those 2 years come into play.

      Just a general thought. Lots of details to work out. Plenty of reform work to be done.

      Feb 24, 2011 at 9:41 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • justiceontherocks
      justiceontherocks

      The only time anyone says “don’t take this personally” is when they are about to personally insult you.

      Nancy, don’t take this personally but you don’t live in a theocracy. You are entitled to your “Christian values” (an oxymoron if ever there was one) but those values do not defeat my civil rights.

      Feb 24, 2011 at 9:45 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeffree
      Jeffree

      @Tangelo. The bill in MD concerns marriage, *not* civil unions. And if passed by the state Senate (likely) and the House of Delegates (very likely), the Govn’r has already said he will sign it.

      I’m for separating out civil vs religious marriage across the board, but that will be a step a long time in coming.

      Feb 24, 2011 at 10:04 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Patrick
      Patrick

      http://www.nancyjacobs.com/site/Contact/contactform.htm

      Let her know what you think

      Feb 24, 2011 at 11:30 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rick
      Rick

      Tell Nancy what you really thing, I am.

      nancy.jacobs@senate.state.md.us

      Feb 24, 2011 at 12:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Tim
      Tim

      This is what I sent to the senator via http://www.nancyjacobs.com/site/Contact/contactform.htm (thank you Patrick)

      You bet we take it personally. Wouldn’t you take it personally if someone said you are not deserving of equal rights because of the way you were born (say because you are a woman). How else was it meant if not extremely personally when you say that I am not deserving of the same rights and responsibilities as every American citizen who happened to, by no choice of their own, fall in love with a person of the opposite gender. I am sure you have looked at my zip code and will dismiss this because I don’t live in your district. But just know that the eyes of the country are on you and when you discriminate against any of us, you discriminate against all of us.

      Feb 24, 2011 at 1:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Steve
      Steve

      @Jeffree:

      Actually, we already have civil unions in the United States. The word that we use to denote a civil union of two people is, “marriage”.

      Marriage is a civil contract between two people and the state, by which the two people make certain promises to each other, and the state makes certain promises to both of them.

      Notice the absence of the word “church” in the previous sentence. Churches have nothing to do with marriage. No church is party to any marriage. A clergy person can be appointed by the state to preside over a wedding ceremony, as a representative of the state. But, when he/she does so, it is as the representative of the state, not of the church.

      Feb 24, 2011 at 3:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • the crustybastard
      the crustybastard

      Why must “Christian love” always manifest itself as a relentless effort to alienate me from my rights?

      I love my Christian friends even though I think Christians lack the ability to behave in a fair and equitable manner and should be barred from being legislators or judges. Nothing personal, senator.

      Feb 24, 2011 at 4:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jasun mark
      jasun mark

      Nothing personal, Nancy, but you’re a woman… shouldn’t you be all barefoot and looking after the babies God put you on the earth to make?

      You’re obviously way too old to still have them but the reason god lets women stay living past their fertile years is so they can help their daughters raise THEIR kids.

      So Gramma, how about you go do that?

      Nothing personal.

      Feb 24, 2011 at 5:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • alan brickman
      alan brickman

      why don’t women get the same treatment for denying equal rights to gays that closet males get???

      Feb 24, 2011 at 8:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeffree
      Jeffree

      @Steve: I don’t think we disagree, actually. I do know the difference between civil unions & religious marriage. My point was perhaps unclear, but I think the concept of “marriage” had gotten confused. Much of the popular opposition to marriage equality has been tangled up with confusion between the roles of church vs. state, between religious blessing of SGM and the legal/finan├žial benefits that married couples enjoy.

      In several European countries, you get the civil stuff out of the way first and THEN, if you choose, you can go for the religious *ceremony*. That makes it clear what’s a legal recognition of that union and what your religion allows you.

      I hope that clears things up.

      And yessiree, Nancy Jacobs did NOT get her way in preventing SGM, so I’m a happy camper even if I’m not a Marylander.

      Feb 24, 2011 at 9:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      If she isn’t trying to outlaw divorce, shellfish, clothing of mixed fibers…etc… Then I don’t want to hear her phony excuse of “It’s my religion” as a defense of her bigotry.

      Feb 25, 2011 at 7:41 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Patrick Barrett
      Patrick Barrett

      All these Christian bigots need a good hard punch in the mouth. But I love all my bigot friends, and hope they don’t take that personally.

      Feb 25, 2011 at 8:57 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dan
      Dan

      Cunt face.

      Feb 25, 2011 at 11:06 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Richard Ford
      Richard Ford

      Ms. Jacobs’ statement is just another iteration of the “love the sinner, hate the sin” fallacy. It must be uttered with a garden party smile, as at afternoon tea, whilst preparing to thrust a knife into the back of the one you so love. Then the jab. Oh dear, is that blood? Sorry about that, but nothing personal, you understand.

      Feb 25, 2011 at 3:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • bobito
      bobito

      @Patrick Barrett: I’m sure none of your Christian bigot friends will take it personally – the only thing that seems to personally distress them is the idea of 2 guys they never even met who love each other and wanna get married.

      That said… are there actually, like, ANY gay members of Maryland’s house of representatives or senate? I mean other than the closet variety.

      Feb 25, 2011 at 4:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Marc
      Marc

      who said you could speak? Now get back in the fucking kitchen and fix me some dinner.

      Feb 25, 2011 at 9:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Stan Lee
      Stan Lee

      Thanks to all you gays out there, this country is no longer worth fighting for. All you queers better get ready to meet sharia law head on (so to speak) because thanks to you, it’s coming soon and they will be cutting your heads off first. Good riddance! I’m actually looking forward to it and it’s the only thing worth staying for. Chop chop! Bye bye.

      Mar 13, 2011 at 6:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Soupy
      Soupy

      Dear Stan. If you would stop begging for cock at truck stops, this problem can be averted. Then you can joined the army and fight for your country.

      Mar 13, 2011 at 6:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.