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.
protecting marriage
AlanInSLCutah
OMG, that was hillarious. I love it and am sharing that with everyone I know. đ
Mike L
That preist is hot. And OMG this was hilarious đ
Sean
Just registered to vote in CA a couple days ago…heeeheee…
Aaron in Honolulu
This was too funny. lol
âTo 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 wonât even take away any rights that divorcees currently have… except the right to be divorced.â
She could have not put it any better X)
bryan
This is Amazing! Keep up the good work!
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.
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 âBravoâ I donât 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 weâre normal and natural! And isnât that enough justificationâŠ
ânormalâ and ânatural?â Hopefully we wonât be called-out on the
financial inequity and thievery of it all. And because we all agree
that it is the senateâs option to gauge the validity of relationships
and determine who has the right to be supported by this holy
institution and who doesnât, I have thought about a list of other
groups that you should vote ânoâ to during the next senate go-round.
This list is as followsâŠ
1) Naturists: People who participate in this lifestyle really
shouldnât be permitted to destroy the purity and sanctity of marriage.
And because there are multiple penisis and/or multiple vajajays among
one another, itâs really no better than what the homos do. Itâs
unnatural. Well, I mean, itâs totally natural but itâs not what we
want to be natural. Iâm going to add âSwingersâ to this list because
they are like really fucked-up hardcore naturists. Adding a woman into
the mix doesnât fool us. Itâs totally gay in spite of the addition of
a woman! And since we really donât 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
âmarriedâ 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. Itâs a bummer and itâs unfair, but itâs all about principal
and protecting the purity and the contrived perception of marriage.
4) Couples over the age of 45: Old people shouldnât be getting married
when theyâre so wrinkly. And thinking about an old manâs rusty coin
slot ass and an old womenâs deflated balloons is just gross. Itâs
unnatural. Anyway, with points 2 and 3 above, itâs already covered.
5) Ugly Couples: While technically this group âcanâ procreate and
continue to contribute society, they shouldnât because uglies are
undesirable. And I donât want to support their lifestyle choice to
create an ugly baby. Furthermore, itâs not fair to the child who,
because theyâre 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 âpoornessâ below in #12.
6) Dull-Normal Couples: People with an IQ of under 70 really donât
contribute to society enough. Plus, they do weird things that arenât
normal. And the senateâs constituency doesnât 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 wonât tell them and they
wonât know the difference because theyâll be too busy having babies in
dumpsters or watching Jerry Springer.
7) Crippled, Blind or Midget Couples: Câmon, they already get the best
parking spaces. They canât 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: Itâs unnatural and icky to think about a
Mexican hooking up with a Jew. The combination of beans and Crohnâs
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: Theyâve already proven that they donât respect
the sanctity of marriage. So f*ck âem.
10) Children of Divorced Parents: Letâs just nip it in the bud and end
this destructive pattern.
11) Adulterers: Have trampled on civilized societyâs idea of what
marriage ought to be. Like number 9, theyâve proven to be unworthy of
marriage.
12) Poor people: This is all really about money and withholding
benefits from people we donât like, just like the gays. I say letâs
just remove poor people from the list of those deserving marriage
privileges, and hereâs 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 âusâ who fit the profile of pure and
prosperous hetro married bliss.
13) People That Donât Go To Church: Isnât this obvious? If you donât
support our lord, you donât support the idea of marriage that we
intend to foster with your tax dollars. For some reason, God-fearing
people feel comfortable throwing Godâs name around and using religion
as a shield to reinforce own bigotry. So why not continue to take
advantage of these fundamentalist whackoâs for our political agenda
too?
14) Fatties: Really now. Besides the gays, whatâs 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 werenât born
fat and, unlike the uglies in line 5, fatness was a choice just like
being gay. So just donât be fat and then your desirability will
increase in the eyes of the rest of âus.â 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 âextra sprinkles!â
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 itâs a ânoâ 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 âunnaturalâ lifestyle.
For the âunnaturalâ argument to hold water, letâs 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 whatâs
ânaturalâ is always the barometer for whatâs sensible.
So, my honorable senate, please consider my pleas to revoke marriage
to all of the above groups. Because if youâre able to revoke the human
rights for one group, take (steal) their tax dollars without providing
any benefits, why not revoke the marriage âprivilegesâ of bunch of
other people that we donât respect?
XOXO
Darren