And The Hypocrisy Award 2008 Goes To...

[wahrheit]

... Sens. Craig and Vitter for co-sponsoring the "Marriage Protection Amendment."

It's not The Onion, it's for real.

 

[Oliver]

*lol* You mean Craig just like in Senator Craig? That's some funny **** indeed. On the other Hand - he's just a pretty common Republican Politician...

 

[WildCat]

He's not hypocritical. Craig is married and keeps his gay side limited to anonymous sex in public bathrooms. He has, after all, no intentions of marrying any of his glory hole partners.

 

[wahrheit]

He's not hypocritical. Craig is married and keeps his gay side limited to anonymous sex in public bathrooms.

It seems we have a very different understanding of 'hypocrisy'. Well, so be it.

He has, after all, no intentions of marrying any of his glory hole partners.

I don't know, nor do you.

Since his own life is so miserable, I guess he wants others to suffer as well.

 

[Ziggurat]

Umm... I'm pretty sure Wildcat was making a joke. But really, 2008 isn't even half over - it's a little early to be declaring winners, though it seems reasonable to nominate him as a serious contender.

 

[Travis]

We still have till November for McCain and Obama to try and get those swing voters. That promises to create all sorts of hypocrisy.

 

[Beerina]

He's not hypocritical. Craig is married and keeps his gay side limited to anonymous sex in public bathrooms. He has, after all, no intentions of marrying any of his glory hole partners.

Hehehehe.








And also, uh, hehehehe.









As a tangent, I loathe some of the wording in modern ammendments, proposed or otherwise. Section 1. This article may be cited as the "Marriage Protection Ammenment".

There is no reason whatsoever of a need to do this. It needlessly clutters the Constitution, and is very unlike the elegance of Constitutional wording. Yes, I know they're doing this for advertising.

Section 2. - Lots of questions and also somewhat clunky.

-- Some states may explicitely permit gay marriage. Would this forbid that?
-- "Or the legal incidents thereof" -- Forbidding "civil unions" and other marriag-like states, ok, but does "shall [not] be construed" mean "no gay marriage at all", or just "no sneaky back-door judge re-construing historical interpretations"? I.e. a state that explicitely and deliberately allows it in their consitution (or just via approval of their legislature, just not forced by a judge) are forbidden?

-- And if not, then some states may choose to allow it. This ammendment does not seem to speak to the issue of other states being required to recognize them.

 

[GreyICE]

*facepalm*

Some days even the Onion just can't keep up.

 

[pgwenthold]

I am just wondering, how absolutely blunt do you have to be to not consider this a joke? Are there really people in the US who are saying, "Thank God we have guys like Craig and Vitter out there protecting the sanctity of marriage!"

 

[Gurdur]

It seems we have a very different understanding of 'hypocrisy'. Well, so be it.
I don't know, nor do you.
Since his own life is so miserable, I guess he wants others to suffer as well.

Wahrheit, beim allen Respekt, ich glaube Du irrst Dich hier gewaltig. WildCat hat ein Witz gemacht, und es so scheint, als ob Du nicht nur es vielzuviel ernsthaft nimmst, sondern Du irrst Dich sehr in was er tatsächlich gemeint hat.

 

[Gurdur]

Hehehehe.


And also, uh, hehehehe.

I will second this, and also thereby give Beerina the warm fuzzies of having me second a post of Beerina's.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Section 2. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

Hm, it is kinda interesting though. It looks like it is trying to stop State courts from saying that gay marriage is a constitutional right. But does it stop a State from changing it's constitution to explicitly give gays the right to marry? I suppose the first sentence could be against that... But I am not up on my constitutional law .

 

[wahrheit]

Umm... I'm pretty sure Wildcat was making a joke. [...]

Wahrheit, beim allen Respekt, ich glaube Du irrst Dich hier gewaltig. WildCat hat ein Witz gemacht, und es so scheint, als ob Du nicht nur es vielzuviel ernsthaft nimmst, sondern Du irrst Dich sehr in was er tatsächlich gemeint hat.

Oops.

You guys need to make your jokes more obvious to the forum dorks!

Okay, upon re-reading it, I think I get it. Shame on me.