Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
protecting marriage

It’s Not Like Supporters of California’s Ban On Divorce Are Divorcee-Phobic

We’re going to die — DIE! — if supporters of the Marriage Protection Act, which hilariously bans divorce for heterosexual couples, makes it on to the ballot in 2010, and Love Honor Cherish’s repeal of Prop 8 does not. Because while we’re all for John Marcotte’s little experiment to see if can point how how ridiculous it is to “protect” marriage, we’d still much rather have our own marriage rights than see him prove his point. But also, we’d love to see him prove his point. And get Maggie Gallagher’s signature on here.

On:           Dec 30, 2009
Tagged: , , , , , ,
    • AlanInSLCutah

      OMG, that was hillarious. I love it and am sharing that with everyone I know. :)

      Dec 30, 2009 at 12:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike L

      That preist is hot. And OMG this was hilarious :)

      Dec 30, 2009 at 1:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sean

      Just registered to vote in CA a couple days ago…heeeheee…

      Dec 30, 2009 at 1:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Aaron in Honolulu

      This was too funny. lol

      “To me this is not about hating divorcees, or their lifestyle. Like personally, I am not divorcee-phobic. If we pass the marriage protection act, it won’t even take away any rights that divorcees currently have… except the right to be divorced.”

      She could have not put it any better X)

      Dec 30, 2009 at 8:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • bryan

      This is Amazing! Keep up the good work!

      Dec 31, 2009 at 12:18 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lukas P.

      A M E N! Here’s the Real Way to protect “traditional marriage!” End the scourge of divorce, and remove the secret “escape clause” in the vows and Voila!–marriage is now safeguarded.

      Brilliant tactic — I hope other states get similar movements up and running. I can’t wait to see the billboards and signs on buses now.

      Dec 31, 2009 at 2:36 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Darren

      Oh, don’t get me started. I emailed this to everyone I knew last month. This is a bit long and don’t know where I found the time to do this. But here goes….

      In thrilled response to the recent NY senate vote, where all of our
      enlightened Republican senators and eight of our Democrat senators
      voted against gay marriage, BRAVO! And by “Bravo” I don’t mean the
      gay-leaning cable network! By virtue of the fact that most gay couples
      are DINKS (double income no kids) and contribute more to society than
      they ever receive, those of us who are normal heterosexual couples
      with lots of children gain considerably from this. As we should,
      because we’re normal and natural! And isn’t that enough justification…
      “normal” and “natural?” Hopefully we won’t be called-out on the
      financial inequity and thievery of it all. And because we all agree
      that it is the senate’s option to gauge the validity of relationships
      and determine who has the right to be supported by this holy
      institution and who doesn’t, I have thought about a list of other
      groups that you should vote “no” to during the next senate go-round.
      This list is as follows…

      1) Naturists: People who participate in this lifestyle really
      shouldn’t be permitted to destroy the purity and sanctity of marriage.
      And because there are multiple penisis and/or multiple vajajays among
      one another, it’s really no better than what the homos do. It’s
      unnatural. Well, I mean, it’s totally natural but it’s not what we
      want to be natural. I’m going to add “Swingers” to this list because
      they are like really fucked-up hardcore naturists. Adding a woman into
      the mix doesn’t fool us. It’s totally gay in spite of the addition of
      a woman! And since we really don’t like the gays, we need to cull the
      naturists together onto a big list and nullify their marriages.

      2) Childless Couples: The purpose of protecting marriage and keeping
      undesirables, like homos, from getting married is to support life and,
      in turn, support the continuation of society by having lots of babies.
      It goes without saying that if you have no intention of having
      children, you are weird. So you may not get married and you may not
      receive the benefits of legitimate couples. If you do not bear a child
      within five years of marriage, the senate will revoke your marriage
      privileges. Additionally, these newly single individuals might be
      responsible for repayment of taxes associated with falsely claiming
      “married” on taxes during this period of gross deception.

      3) Infertile Couples: See above. Any marriage be nullified if and when
      it is determined either of the two within the married couple are
      infertile. It’s a bummer and it’s unfair, but it’s all about principal
      and protecting the purity and the contrived perception of marriage.

      4) Couples over the age of 45: Old people shouldn’t be getting married
      when they’re so wrinkly. And thinking about an old man’s rusty coin
      slot ass and an old women’s deflated balloons is just gross. It’s
      unnatural. Anyway, with points 2 and 3 above, it’s already covered.

      5) Ugly Couples: While technically this group “can” procreate and
      continue to contribute society, they shouldn’t because uglies are
      undesirable. And I don’t want to support their lifestyle choice to
      create an ugly baby. Furthermore, it’s not fair to the child who,
      because they’re ugly, might end up being poor and they might have to
      tap-into the tax base provided by pure, honorable and attractive hetro
      couples. More elaboration on “poorness” below in #12.

      6) Dull-Normal Couples: People with an IQ of under 70 really don’t
      contribute to society enough. Plus, they do weird things that aren’t
      normal. And the senate’s constituency doesn’t go for weird. Dumb
      people are actually a real pain in the ass for the rest of us. They
      hold up traffic and they watch a lot of daytime TV. So I would like to
      revoke their marriage privileges. We just won’t tell them and they
      won’t know the difference because they’ll be too busy having babies in
      dumpsters or watching Jerry Springer.

      7) Crippled, Blind or Midget Couples: C’mon, they already get the best
      parking spaces. They can’t expect us to allow them to get married like
      the rest of us! So maybe if we try being mean and ostracizing them
      they will just go away. That generally works.

      8) Mixed Race Couples: It’s unnatural and icky to think about a
      Mexican hooking up with a Jew. The combination of beans and Crohn’s
      disease is completely incompatible. All citizens should be categorized
      in very broad politically correct segments that may not cross-breed.
      The one exception is for good looking Asian women; They may marry
      within the non-Jew Caucasian Male segment… because white men love
      Asian women and they make great looking offspring. And that pleases
      the Senate majority.

      9) Divorced Couples: They’ve already proven that they don’t respect
      the sanctity of marriage. So f*ck ‘em.

      10) Children of Divorced Parents: Let’s just nip it in the bud and end
      this destructive pattern.

      11) Adulterers: Have trampled on civilized society’s idea of what
      marriage ought to be. Like number 9, they’ve proven to be unworthy of

      12) Poor people: This is all really about money and withholding
      benefits from people we don’t like, just like the gays. I say let’s
      just remove poor people from the list of those deserving marriage
      privileges, and here’s why… It is necessary to contribute to an
      economy that will provide an education and the supporting
      infrastructure necessary to raise your child (my children) and other
      tax and estate benefits that we want proper, straight, god fearing
      hetro couples to receive. Those who cannot contribute to this economy
      sufficiently to support this may not get married. Anyone unable to
      provide a minimum of one 3,000 sq/ft home on a cul-de-sac to provide
      shelter for themselves and their family, may not get married.
      Furthermore, marriage candidates must have the financial resources to
      purchase a tan or white Toyota Camry SE every four years. If not,
      marriage candidates are not qualified to raise children properly, or
      support society (i.e. the kind of people who behave as I wish) and
      therefore do not meet the criteria for marriage. Struggling families
      are undesirable to those of “us” who fit the profile of pure and
      prosperous hetro married bliss.

      13) People That Don’t Go To Church: Isn’t this obvious? If you don’t
      support our lord, you don’t support the idea of marriage that we
      intend to foster with your tax dollars. For some reason, God-fearing
      people feel comfortable throwing God’s name around and using religion
      as a shield to reinforce own bigotry. So why not continue to take
      advantage of these fundamentalist whacko’s for our political agenda

      14) Fatties: Really now. Besides the gays, what’s more disgusting? All
      the sounds and sweaty suction noises during procreation are almost as
      bad as the image of a couple of nancyboys. And for me to be
      comfortable of the whole marriage thing, I have to be satisfied with
      the images of sex that other people are having. Fatties weren’t born
      fat and, unlike the uglies in line 5, fatness was a choice just like
      being gay. So just don’t be fat and then your desirability will
      increase in the eyes of the rest of “us.” And badda bing… fatties will
      no longer be fat and may get married! We (senate) are taking a gamble
      here, because the children of ex-fatties might still end up fat. But
      the US Senate is a generous and forgiving power, and we are offering
      the benefit of the doubt. However, should the weight of the ex-fatty
      increase after the marriage ceremony, the marriage will be voided
      faster than you can say “extra sprinkles!”

      15) Marriages Resulting From Online Dating: What is so wrong with
      getting her drunk in a bar or pouring beer on her at a wet t-shirt
      contest during spring break? Online dating is so impersonal unnatural
      and cold. And if people have to do it this way, they are probably
      undesirable in all sorts of ways. So it’s a “no” for anyone with an
      online dating profile because of the Ugly clause stated in #5. If you
      are on the prowl for a new partner, just hire some interns.

      16) Marriages of any couple who have lived any “unnatural” lifestyle.
      For the “unnatural” argument to hold water, let’s be consistent.
      Besides the gays, this includes anyone who has had an MRI, uses a cell
      phone, wears corrective lenses, has air conditioning and indoor
      plumbing, has had dental work, breast implants, takes Viagra or
      aspirin, uses electricity, takes a multivitamin, eats processed foods,
      sent an email, mailed a package overnight, has flown on an airplane,
      drives a car, drinks out of a plastic container, has a blog or
      website, uses nail polish or colors their hair. Because what’s
      “natural” is always the barometer for what’s sensible.

      So, my honorable senate, please consider my pleas to revoke marriage
      to all of the above groups. Because if you’re able to revoke the human
      rights for one group, take (steal) their tax dollars without providing
      any benefits, why not revoke the marriage “privileges” of bunch of
      other people that we don’t respect?


      Jan 2, 2010 at 12:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

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

  • Copyright 2016 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.