Well, what's left me speechless about this crazy woman is this set of 14 "vows" that she signed, and that others are being urged to sign. I know, because the GOP is just clamoring to get the crazy vote November 2012, others will sign on too. The full list of insanity can be found here, but for your reading pleasure, I'm going to dissect each of these points. This here is a general warning - you'll want to get the safety gear out, tape up the cuffs of your pants and sleeves, and make sure your oxygen tank is filled up. This isn't a biohazard zone, but it sure as hell is a moral hazard one, and we need to take precautions around those lest they infect us. Also, you'll want to set aside your irony meters, as always. It's the proper precaution when dealing with any right-wing contamination site.
So... deep breath and here we go.
Personal fidelity to my spouse*Wrinkles it up and throws it over his shoulder* - so much for 90% of the Republican Party. I guess that doesn't count if you have a wide stance, does it? Or if you serve your divorce notice to your wife while she's in the hospital recovering from cancer? "I promise fidelity to my spouse until I see a younger, prettier woman."
Respect for the Martial Bonds of others.Unless you're gay. Or unless you're married interracially. Martial Bonds only stretch as far as I'm willing to reach outside of my box.
Official fidelity to the U.S. Constitution, supporting the elevation of none but the faithful constitutionalists as judges or justices.Or... I support my mythical interpretation of the constitution and judges that also support my mythical interpretation. You know, the Constitution that makes Christianity (my sect, of course) the national religion and says "In God We Trust" should be on the back of our money. That Constitution. You know, the one that doesn't exist in the real world but helps to define Real America(tm).
Vigorous opposition to any redefinition of the Institution of Marriage - faithfulAh... yes, Statutory, Bureaucratic, or court-imposed recognition of these unions. That's a wordy way to say "Government", kids. That's right, no matter what you do, I'll live in my own little world, detached from your own, and I'll pay yours a visit every so often just to screw shit up - and to prove it, I'll sign this pledge. Notice how "Institution of Marriage" is capitalized. This is part of that anthropomorphizing I was describing in a earlier post. In that post, I commented about how, when you anthropomorphize something in literature, you're giving it human qualities. They're just expressing how special this "institution" is by making it human - they have to make it something, because God knows it certainly isn't real.
monogamy between one man and a piece of property with no thoughts for her ownone woman - through statutory-, bureaucratic-. or court-imposed recognition of intimate unions which are bigamous, polygamous, polyandrous, same-sex, etc.
Recognition of the overwhelming statistical evidence that married people enjoy better health, better sex, longer lives, greater financial stability, and that children raised by a mother and a father together experience better learning, less addiction, less legal trouble, and less extramarital pregnancy.This is funny. I'd like to know how they know this; I didn't think Republicans stayed married long enough to know these things. And yet, I don't see any of that evidence. There's not. Not even a footnote saying "See this book published by our publishing house that remarkably supports everything we have to say 100%" a la Jack Chick. You people really are slipping.
"We love marriage so much that, despite all of these wonderful things we've said about it, we're willing to deny it to a segment of the population because they're icky!"
Support for prompt reform of uneconomic, anti-marriage aspects of the welfare policy, tax policy, and martial/divorce laws, and extended "second chance" and "cooling off" periods for those seeking a "quickie divorce.""Quickie divorce." That sound like a sex act. Or at least a really bad drink that you'd buy from Apu's store: "Thank you, come again!" Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Das ist sehr wunderbar. Now do you care to tell me what exactly those "prompt reform(s)" will be? Because I think if you actually define them, you'll have less people signing on. Come to think of it, that's probably why you didn't define them.
Earnest, bona fide legal advocacy for the"Earnest, bona fide legal advocacy" for something that the legal branch of the feds, the DOJ, already said they would no longer have "earnest, bona fide legal advocacy" for.
Destruction Of Modern AmericaDefense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) at federal and state levels.
Steadfast embrace of a federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which protects the definition of marriage as between one man and oneBad grammar! Bad, bad grammar! That should be "... the definition of marriage as between one man and one piece of property in the entire United States." That's just poor sentence structure and sloppy syntax.
piece of property with no mind of her ownwoman in all of the United States.
That's right. We're amending that very same Constitution we promised to uphold what was it, several paragraphs ago?
Note the Small Government at play here. Why, that Small Government is so freaking small that I can barely see it from here.
Also: "We hereby embrace this because it won't be unnecessarily redundant when we get laughed out of the courts for trying to enforce DOMA."
Humane protection of women and the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy [WTF? - En] - our next generation of American children - from human trafficking, sexual slavery, seduction into promiscuity, and all forms of pornography and prostitution, infanticide, abortion, and other types of coercion or stolen innocence.Yep. It's English. I'm pretty sure the words are, anyway.
"Hey! We need something in here about pushing those sluts who do porn and those whores."
"Throw it in."
"We can't! Nobody will sign on if we put it that way."
"Then ... throw some shit in there about "human trafficking" and big fancy words that have zero meaning. That'll dare those stupid liberals to mock us now - what's wrong, Lib? You got a problem with trying to stop human trafficking? Yeah, see, it's genius."
The "innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy" - that reads like a line from a horrible fanfic. That's some real purple prose there, kids. Seriously, how can you take anyone seriously who talks like that? We will defend our innocent fruits of conjugal intimacy from pornography! We will defend our innocent fruits of conjugal innocence from others who like to take a swing at the low hanging fruit! Sounds like you're talking about testicles. "We will defend our testicles from pornography!" I doubt they'll enjoy that.
"Seduction into promiscuity" - holy shit that's not so vapid a phrase it can't be misconstrued enough different ways to crisscross America. What does this garbage even mean?
They'll defend them from "infanticide" - you heard it here first. The Republicans are volunteering to put up a national healthcare plan to prevent children from capitalist and corporate infanticide. Can you smell the Small Government? Why, it's a Small Enough Government it fits neatly beside you in bed!
I'm not the only one thinking of those scary little cherubs now, am I? Little innocent, blonde haired, blue-eyed devil spawn of God. Ugh *shudder*
Support for the enactment of safeguards for all married and unmarried U.S. Military and National Guard personnel, especially our combat troops, from inappropriate same-gender or opposite-gender sexual harassment, adultery, or intrusively intimate commingling among attracteds [sic] (restrooms, showers, barracks, tents, etc); plus prompt termination of military policy makers who would expose American daughters and wives to rape or sexual harassment, torture, or sexual leveraging by the enemy in forward combat roles.This is how the right wing walks that line. I got to the "from inappropriate same-gender" before I burst out laughing and couldn't finish writing for a few minutes. The rest of it isn't funny, and it's that sort of "I really, honestly do care" that lets the Right-wing hide from leftists by claiming "we're feminists, too! We care about women, too!"
So what's that mean? Separate barracks? Segregation? Different tents and showers? I'm not sure. This is pretty sparkle. "I'm waving my hand and sounding nice! Don't think too deeply about this!"
Rejection of Sharia Islam and all other anti-woman, anti-human forms of totalitarian control.Congratulations. In one fell swoop, you just undid almost every point north of here. Good job. Even though I left my irony meter some six points back, it still overloaded.
I know that the Constitution forbids religious tests for office, but they should at least have to take a mirror test.
So what's this mean... you're going to protect women from yourselves?
Recognition that robust child bearing and reproduction is beneficial to the U.S. Demographic, economic, strategic, and actuarial health and security.That's right ... so long as it's the right kind of women spittin' out those babies, that is. You heard it here first, ladies. Your entire purpose in life is to be a womb with two legs. Gee, I wonder why that sounds so familiar. Never mind our planet is overcrowded and can barely sustain the population it's got. We need moar pplz! More people to help defend the Fatherland!
Commitement to downsizing the government and the enormous burden upon American families of the US 14.3 trillion dollar public debt, it's 77 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities, its 1.5 trillion federal deficit, and it's 3.5 trillion federal budget.Whatever you points you made that you didn't kill with the Sharia vow you killed with this one. Good job! That's another irony meter you bastards own me. How much do you think it'll cost to ban abortion and keep it banned? How much do you think it'll cost to keep up your Vice Police to make sure that porn stays illegal, to ban the entire Internet? How much money do you think it'll cost to make sure that women don't have abortions, since you seem to care.
The very next words there were going to be "Bra-kaw! Polly want a cracker!" but they realized they didn't want to look too much like birds. So they replaced it instead, but ultimately left the "Quack, quack!" in the text.
Fierce defense of the First Amendment's right to Religious Liberty and Freedom of Speech, especially against the intolerance of any who would undermine law-abiding American citizens and institutions of faith and conscious for their adherence to, and defense of, faithful heterosexual monogamy.That sentence implodes under it's own hypocrisy. Really. It's like watching one of those "Engineering Disaster" shows, where they play the disaster back each time from different angles, each time in slow motion so you can see every graphic detail of how it failed. That's sorta like this point. It's a linguistic disaster and it's a logical anti-thought.
"We're the victims! We have defend Religious Liberty and Freedom of Speech, except against intolerance and those that want to criticize us and call us homophobic bigots for believing that Gays are evil!"
I mean, Goddamn. That's a fucking mental monkey-bar set. The loops that you have to do to get there... it's like an oroborous of fail, forever consuming itself in a Möbius strip of utter and complete hypocrisy. I got dizzy just typing that. Quantum entanglement is more logical and makes more sense than that.
Oh, but before I leave you with that headache, here's another part from the document. It's not part of the vows, but it just goes to show how utterly detached from reality these people really are:
Slavery had a disastrous impact on Africa-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 were more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA's first African American president.Mmm... you can taste the racism.