Friday, April 17, 2009

Best NOM Parody To Date


(h/t Watertiger)

Because gay marriage is nothing less than an Apocalyptic tur-duck-en of nine Hitlers stuffed inside of seven Stalins, all crammed inside a Socialist time machine (built by job-stealing illegal immigrants out of desecrated American flags) that travels back to 1773 as part of MSNBC's master plan (which was organized by ACORN) to kill the Original Tea Baggers, confiscate all the colonists AK-47s, force them to join unions, and then dump fluoride into Boston Harbor.

All funded by George Soros, batter dipped in Big Gummint Atheism, and parboiled in the faggy Liberal chardonnay of the Antichrist.

Only worse.

7 comments:

HelloDollyLlama said...

Gay rights mean...what?

Polls show that Americans support civil unions. But the American people don’t really grasp what it entails.

Heterosexual couples enjoy many rights which gay couples often don’t. They come in five different categories.

First, is the category which I call “Other People’s Money”. This means that government changes a policy in such a way that private corporations must fork over money to gays even if they don’t want to. The big item here is insurance coverage. This is another reason why we need universal health coverage – it is stupid to make health coverage dependent on employment or marriage.

Second is the “government money” category. That means that government changes policy in a way that means that you, as the taxpayer, give new money to gays. This includes compensation for service-related deaths, income tax filing status and deductions, tax-free property transfers, Social Security, veteran’s pensions and disability, disabled vets tax exemptions, and relocation benefits for military families. There are some issues which could be either Other People’s Money or governmental money, depending on the rules: these include survivor benefits and continuation of health care for surviving spouses.

Third is the category which means that gays get more rights under government regulations than they do now, even if no money is necessarily involved. These include organ donor issues, next-of-kin status, parental rights, access to school records, alimony, child custody, adoption, foster care, homestead laws, water rights, spousal assets as a factor in determining need for government aid (VA benefits, housing, educational loans, farm price supports), name changes, domestic violence laws, spousal privilege for criminal witnesses, prison and hospital visitation, conflict-of-interest rules, medical decisions, and funeral decisions.

Fourth: this category involves areas in which the government would need to impose regulations on private corporations. This would include condominium laws and bankruptcy.

The fifth category involves problems which could be resolved by a simple consensual contract, such as child support (if the law allows it), shared property, prenuptial agreements, and wills and inheritance.

That’s why I was warning people a few weeks ago – the Iowa ruling said what the marriage rule was NOT, namely one-man-one-woman. It didn’t really say what the rule IS: which rights are now to be provided to new couples?

We need fair statutory law to give gays and lesbians their rights. Conservatives have a legitimate issue: all of this means that the rest of us will probably pay more money. But at the end of the day, gays have a legitimate point that we cannot simply throw our hands in the air and insist that “we just can’t afford to treat gays fairly”. Not acceptable.

HelloDollyLlama said...

How to write a gay marriage law

The recent Iowa ruling told us what their gay marriage law was not. Now comes the task of legislating what the law actually is.

The trick with writing a good law, is idiot-proofing it so that the people who come along and try to abuse it, wreck it, violate it, skirt it, stretch it, violate the letter and spirit of it...can be stopped.

Conservatives are dead wrong in asserting that marriage must be only an issue between one man and one woman. But they are dead right in that if the line isn’t drawn there, it must be drawn somewhere. The people who draw the line need to draw it carefully, to account for people like this:

Rightwing loons who try to game the system, to make it harder for gays to marry....Ever since Roe versus Wade, anti-abortion nuts have tried every trick in the book to make certain states and counties abortion-free – harassing abortion providers, giving anti-abortion providers the option of referring service under a “conscience exception” etc. What if rightwing churches and justices of the peace try to do the same to gay couples in certain jurisdictions? Should the law stipulate that gay couples must always have access to marriage officiation? We already have some wild and woolly definitions of who can officiate at weddings – judges, ship captains, faux Elvises from Vegas with mail-order theological degrees, Uncle Ray-Ray who runs a voodoo shop, you name it – but in some cases a new provision might be needed for gay couples. You can also count on gay-friendly services to start popping up.

People who might want to expand the concept of marriage beyond two people....Cultures around the world have experimented with group marriages for thousands of years, but Americans might hesitate on that, particularly if it means allowing a pimp to “marry” all his girls to get them health care, or a homeless activist to do the same for a shelter full of homeless guys. In the end we will probably shift slowly from a one-man-one-woman rule to a two-adult rule.

Religious groups who want to expand the concept of marriage even more widely....Not just group marriages but under-age marriages and marriages which entail rights, responsibilities and rituals that some would call “religious” and others would call “criminal” – drugs, sacrifices, etc. You get into that, and suddenly you’re tangling with the First Amendment, which courts have already had to do on this issue. Are these the sort of people gays will want as their political allies in the legislative battles? Or could the rightwingers actually make common cause with those folks, to try to kill a gay-marriage bill with a poison-pill amendment that nobody likes?

Transgender, hermaphrodites, and other categories of in-betweener....Anybody got a plan to account for them?

Insurance companies that try to game the system by encouraging (bribing) state legislatures to prohibit health coverage for out-of-state gay partners, and then incorporating in those states. You never know what they will come up with.

States which will drag their feet on changing their gay marriage law, to wait for the toxic effect of the political power of evangelicals to wear off a bit.

The red states that will refuse to budge at all on this issue....Will there be “gay flight”? What happens in a state with great employment opportunities but lousy gay-rights laws, or vice versa?

We cannot leave all this up in the air. If government doesn’t take action in the form of legislation, then government will still get involved in the form of endless litigation in court. Once all these battles really begin in the legislatures, the pro-gay team needs to get in the room when the actual language is being drafted, because the rightwing loons will absolutely be in the room too. We need to change the rules so that gay couples can marry, but we also need to manage the change the right way, so we don’t have the little old lady down the road marching into church and demanding the right to marry 20 of her cats. We don’t want to give the rightwing loons a chance to bury us all in slippery-slope arguments, so we need to get to the slope before they do, and fence it off sensibly.

I see a lot of lawyers getting rich on this in the next decade or so.


See it all at http://hellodollyllama.blogspot.com/

karen marie said...

NOM sounds delicious!

Anonymous said...

I was generally cheerful that the high court in my state made the decision. HelloDollyLlama shot that down.
I'm feared he has a bunch of good points. . .

...now I try to be amused said...

"Conservatives who have extra money in this economy to make this non-issue an issue are responsible for the content of this ad."

Hee!

Larue said...

HDL, you got yer blog, time to just link to yer posts.

No need to share them here, or elsewhere, just to chase linkers, ya know?

Yer in my 5, I'll check ya out.

But no need to go on in here anymore.

I don't think.

Get MY Drift?

Yer blogwhoring, and it's not necessary.

Course, this ain't my blog, either. *G*

K said...

You know, my dad falls for this crap too, and if ANYONE should know better - its him.

Like the Church group in New Jersey, who said their building on the beach was public access - when they denied a commitment ceremony. The fact it was a commitment ceremony and not a marriage shows it had zero to do with same-sex marriage. And, if a lesbian couple could not reserve it for a party that shows it was in fact not public access and therefore ineligible for a property tax exemption. The rest of their church property's tax status was left unchanged.

Oh dear, when will the conservatives move on?