Gay rights advocates are worrying about this. It doesn't seem to be on the agenda, but it should not go unnoticed that the Lieutenant Governor-elect Rebecca Kleefisch made one of the stupidest ever statements about same-sex marriage: "At what point are we going to OK marrying inanimate objects? Can I marry this table, or this, you know, clock?"
What kind of person, looking for a vivid image, would come up with the idea of marrying a clock?
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
९५ टिप्पण्या:
Spousal abusers could marry Timex watches because they take a licking and keep on ticking. Sorry about that one. My inner Ricky Gervais slipped out.
If you marry a clock, and your spouse says "I'm late!", they're just...late, not pregnant! Whew!
Unless, of course, you're doing nasty things with that clock...then, you'd best expect some wristwatches in 9 months.
We divorce lawyers will still have business since some clocks are Cuckoo.
I can see their wedding announcement now. Seth Thomas to wed Mickey M. Watch, if he gets to the church on time.
Moronic image, but it seems that both sides suffer from a lack of imagination; obviously the issue at hand whether or not the state government can indeed define what exactly is considered a marriage. Remember, 50 years ago, the idea of men getting married to one another was outlandish and ridiculous.
I support gay marriage, but I’d like some consistency. If the state can’t say that a marriage between two men won’t be recognized, it also should not be allowed to say that a polygamous marriage between a man and 4 women would not be recognized, and other scenarios along those lines.
Lt. Gov-elect K. is going back for more chemo. I wish her well.
Why wouldn't the Republicans go after the Gays now? They have the power, and have to cement their hold with their primary-voting constituency.
Everyone knows Kleefisch loves the clock.
Maybe the Lt. Governor-Elect was a big fan of "Boston Legal" back in the day. In one of the later seasons, an attorney at the firm briefly dated a woman who developed emotional attachments to inanimate objects (which the show suggests is a legitimate mental disorder).
If memory serves, she dumped him for his alarm clock.
But what does Sharia Law say?
When all you have to criticize is the style of someone's argument, I think it's fair to say you've lost the actual substantive argument.
/snark on
They won't repeal the registry. They need it to know who to round up for the special re-education camps.
/snark off
She needs clock, bad!
WV: fising - just another misspelled word in this thread.
"What kind of person, looking for a vivid image, would come up with the idea of marrying a clock?"
Flava Flav!
Why wouldn't the Republicans go after the Gays now? They have the power, and have to cement their hold with their primary-voting constituency.
When did Republicans ever "go after the Gays?"
Never happened.
At least that image is so absurd that people laugh at it.
Unfortunately, people seem to get a lot of traction when they say "dog" or "child" instead of "clock", even though it's no less absurd.
eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_controversy
And, when did Gays get a initial cap?
Are they an official ethnic group now?
Here is our new Lt Governor. A sort of Bachman-Palin hybrid.
I knew this girl that whenever we met up at the bar was always announcing what time it was to her girlfriends. "It's two o'clock we have to go home soon."
We called her a clock-blocker.
Garage...That is quite an endorsement calling this Lady a Bachman-Palin Hybrid. She can run for the Senate in 2012 on Palin's coattailsand easily send Feingold finally out into the cold.
Didn't I just see an article about some woman someplace marrying herself?
Bachman-Palin hybrid.
-->Bachman-Palin-Overdrive, BPO
Sounds like a great 70's era band name
Why wouldn't the Republicans go after the Gays now? They have the power, and have to cement their hold with their primary-voting constituency.
Because more gays than ever are voting Republican and lots of Republicans and independent conservatives, like myself, do not have a serious beef with civil unions, or gay marriage, for it to be a make or break issue. I say let'em suffer like the rest of us.
Limited government, decreased spending and putting the Bill of Rights into practice is what swings my vote.
Hagar - She was Taiwanese, but the principle remains.
Because more gays than ever are voting Republican and lots of Republicans and independent conservatives, like myself, do not have a serious beef with civil unions, or gay marriage, for it to be a make or break issue. I say let'em suffer like the rest of us.
I just voted straight Republican.
Am I a proponent of gay marriage? Not really.
Do I give enough of a shit to fight over it? No.
What will I do if gay marriage becomes reality? Nothing.
Well, I've got to clean out the gutters on my house next weekend.
But, seriously, I want to know. When did Gays get an initial cap? Are they a certified ethnic group?
Focus. On. The. Budget.
I just voted straight Republican.
Am I a proponent of gay marriage? Not really.
Do I give enough of a shit to fight over it? No.
What will I do if gay marriage becomes reality? Nothing.
Well, I've got to clean out the gutters on my house next weekend.
Exactly. Excetp I'll be doing something with my kids.
Remember, 50 years ago, the idea of men getting married to one another was outlandish and ridiculous.
Whereas now it makes perfect sense, right?
Say, how did she get elected anyway with an attitude like that? Just askin'.
What would really be great is if the legislature in Wisconsin made a law granting civil union rights with all the different rights attached to it that gay people want, but allowed people uncomfortable with gay marriage to opt out of things that are not essential (e.g., providing health insurance through work).
But that's probably too much to ask of any legislature.
Focus. On. The. Budget.
Yes, you would think that there is plenty to work with just on the budget fiasco that is Wisconsin state Government.
I don't know. Maybe this is Gays fabricating an issue that might happen, but more likely will not. We'll see.
What kind of person, looking for a vivid image, would come up with the idea of marrying a clock?
Apparently, a good proportion of your regular commenters
What kind of person, looking for a vivid image, would come up with the idea of marrying a clock?
I do like an hour glass figure!!
OMG, I'm funny!!
Garage;
Given your politics are you suggesting a sort of political variation on the old Smuckers ad:
(say for a candidate who looks like this)
With looks like these she has to be good.
To answer the question, I have a feeling there are more urgent matters to address.
Ann Althouse said...
What kind of person, looking for a vivid image, would come up with the idea of marrying a clock?
Well, you've got people marrying dolphins, several other people of varying sexes, and themselves (not to mention the NAMBLA crowd wanting to marry people under age 8). After Lawrence v Texas, inanimate objects may be the final frontier.
trad guy
We divorce lawyers will still have business since some clocks are Cuckoo
My mostly long ago experience handling divorce matters, including gay "divorces," was that at least 50% of the clients and 75% of the lawyers were cuckoo. I'm not ruling myself out either; if anything could make youi cuckoo, it's doing divorce litigation.
Focus. On. The. Budget.
Yes, you would think...
Exactly. My hunch is that someone is shopping the idea around.
Gay rights advocates say the GOP's focus on fiscal issues is a convenient smokescreen, noting Republicans have a record of fighting against domestic partnerships.
A smokescreen?!? Earth to advocates: Not everything is about you.
"Am I a proponent of gay marriage? Not really.
Do I give enough of a shit to fight over it? No."
Gay rights advocates confuse indifference with hostility. Also, opposition to domestic partner benefits, whatever it's other merit or lack thereof, is not inconsistent with a commitment to fiscal responsibility.
shouting
If you'd like, you can do my gutters too.
I have a question:
Is there any reason/purpose for the state to license your best friend?
"What kind of person, looking for a vivid image, would come up with the idea of marrying a clock?"
Damn, Althouse is a cloccaphobe.
Timex love is nothing to be ashamed of.
The only clock joke I know: Why did the clock go back four seconds?
Because it was still hungry.
Seriously, though, statements like the one under discussion sound a lot stupider than they really are. The question asked with absurd imagery is: By what merit is marriage between two men legitimate but between a man and a clock not? If we extend the scope of marriage beyond heterosexual unions, which by the progression of our cultural and legal heritage we deem the basic unit, by what standard do we proceed until gay marriage is included but stop so that inanimate marriages are not? Really, I can't imagine a standard that would allow for gay marriage but not polygamy at least, or gay marriage and inanimate object marriages at most. And I just love how incredulous most gay marriage supports act when you bring this notion up. "Surely we aren't savages! We wouldn't propose that we legalize polygamy!"
shouting
If you'd like, you can do my gutters too.
Frickin' communist!
At what point do we OK polygamy and incest?
I suspect the vast majority of Republicans support domestic partnerships. The obsession with marriage sometimes seems to contain some other obsessions. Andrew Sullivan, for example, is obsessed with being Catholic. Do you really believe he would not go after the Catholic Church once gay marriage was legal ? That is the cause of the reservations of many.
By the way, Palin supported the domestic partnership rules on benefits for state employees when she was governor of Alaska.
Because it rhymes with "cock?"
People want to keep marriage a monogamous relationship between a man and a woman because they understand that marriage is only around because it is the best thing anybody's conceived of for raising kids in a good environment for the kids. It tends to work well, though it doesn't always work well and though other arrangements can also work well.
Anyone who is not a man and a woman having kids who is a getting married is a free rider. Nothing wrong with that but the free riders are useless as far as the marriage corporation is concerned, and they may as well not be married because they are doing neither good nor harm.
Maybe she couldn't come up with anything on the spur of the moment.
Also, if clocks are inanimate what about robots? If someday a person is allowed to marry a robot, will it then become illegal for others to own one of that model?
Politicians are some of the least intelligent people on the planet. How is this news?
As for polygamy, that will be part and parcel of Sharia, when it arrives. Wait for it...
WV: inect - what can I say?
Alas, homophobia/gay-hatred runs rampant in the Republican party. This will be their downfall in 2012. They will spend all their political capital on abortion, gays. Just you see.
"What kind of person, looking for a vivid image, would come up with the idea of marrying a clock?"
I know, huh?
They're right twice a day, and they never let you forget it.
The question is this: what kind of man would want to marry his mother? What kind of woman would want to marry her son?
Kleefisch knows what she's talking about.
We've been through this bullshit before. Just say no to same sex marriage. There, that was easy.
Alas, homophobia/gay-hatred runs rampant in the Republican party. This will be their downfall in 2012. They will spend all their political capital on abortion, gays. Just you see.
Here we go again!
What's next, Alex?
It "runs rampant!"
We'll give you a few second to really work yourself up into a lather. Gather yourself up. Wipe the spittle off your chin.
You messed up that time. No "racist Republican" stuff. That's part of the spiel. Don't forget next time.
We've been through this bullshit before. Just say no to same sex marriage. There, that was easy.
It's easy if you're inflicted with mindless gay-hatred. Stop the bigotry.
Marry a clock! Why not? In Latin American countries, at least, RC priests bless new cars and other objects.
It's easy if you're inflicted with mindless gay-hatred. Stop the bigotry.
Alex, you completely shit your pants the last time you appeared here.
Sure you want to fight with the adults?
We're "inflicted?" How about "inflected?"
Woman marries self:
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/lifestyle/classified-odd/11/07/10/taiwan-woman-marries-herself
Woman marries dead boyfriend:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4240840/
Woman marries dolphin:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,180478,00.html
Woman marries dog:
http://www.lemondrop.com/2009/07/08/woman-marries-her-dog-seriously/
For some reason a person marrying a clock doesn't sound that far fetched.
st - how am I wrong? Instead of focusing on JOBS the first thing out of the mouth of the Palin/Bachmann clone is GAYS GAYS GAYS. Self-inflicted wound.
It's probably a question worth exploring since robot marriage is coming. Why can't mechanical objects be miserable too?
The group most likely to vote against gay marriage is ... blacks. Lotta blacks have big problems with Jews too.
Take it up with them first. When you solve the black homophobia, you can move on to the Repubs.
To me: big non-issue. Who cares?
And, if three people want to all get married, I'm ok with that too. Think of the great divorce cases we could get.
st - how am I wrong? Instead of focusing on JOBS the first thing out of the mouth of the Palin/Bachmann clone is GAYS GAYS GAYS. Self-inflicted wound.
If you read the article, the comment was not the "first thing out of [her] mouth."
You're the one obsessed with this shit, in capital letters.
Bigot-O-Mania has inflicted you.
Alex said...
Alas, homophobia/gay-hatred runs rampant in the Republican party. This will be their downfall in 2012. They will spend all their political capital on abortion, gays. Just you see.
Someday there will be a prenatal genetic test for homosexuality. Then, most of the homosexuals that survive will be born to conservatives who oppose abortion.
And then of course there's the incident of a man marrying a goat -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudanese_goat_marriage_incident
I am amused by how the gay rights crowd tries to turn disagreement into hatred.
I guess they never faced any real hatred to know the difference.
Trey
It's easy if you're inflicted with mindless gay-hatred. Stop the bigotry.
Because of your own mindless hatred and bigotry, you forget that many conservatives, like myself, have a lesbian sister and a brother who died of AIDS. It REALLY pisses me off when liberals/lefties accuse me of bigotry against my own siblings. The left doesn't really care about gays, blacks, etc. They're just pawns to used in the left's quest for power. The utter lack of true compassion and understanding on the left drives me further away from them than they ever imagine.
Is there any reason/purpose for the state to license your best friend?
I suppose it depends on what that license means.
If it means: when you die, your best friend automatically gets your kids and your property; having a best friend changes your tax status (and the friend's), your best friend has all sorts of rights that other people don't have--if it means that, then maybe there's a reason for the state to define how someone can be a "best friend."
and then of course in Guam a guy married Nene Anegasaki from the Nintendo DS video game “Love Plus,” a virtual dating game and even had a ceremony which was on youtube. Apparently in Guam it;s legal to marry inanimate objects and imaginary ones too.
THen of course tehre's the woman who married a roller coaster, another one who married the Great Wall of China, the Eiffel Tower etc.
I'm sure there are people who married their sex dolls.
So, agian, a clock isn't that far fetched.
To whomever recommended the book "Gang of One" by Fan Shen a few months ago here on Althouse - thank you! My book club read it (based on my recommendation after I read it based on yours) and almost everyone really liked it. Everyone, that is, but the old guy who thought Mr Shen overstated the horrors of Maoist China. This is the same guy who thought the Nazis got a bad rap in "The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society," so I don't give his opinion much credence.
Guys in Japan are marrying fictional characters and pillows so its not so crazy.
...
Okay yes it is crazy.
That was me. I think. I saw him speak about it where I live, and was amazed. I'm glad you like it, too.
Should the guys marriage to his pillow be legal? I mean who's to say what is or isnt' normal, or should or shouldnt be recognized (though I notice the pillow doesn't have to consent). What if this guy then marries a real woman (or a nintendo character or his pet orangutan), does that mean he has to divorce the pillow, or can he be a bigamist? And what about marrying three pillows and an orangutan?
This is the type of thing that will get Obama re-elected. Republicans just can't help themselves when it comes to social issues. They will make stupid, bigoted or extreme statements (of course those statements will then be trumpeted by the press).
Now of course it the Democrats can't help themselves with the arrogant and condescending comments.
So it looks like a race to stupid. I wonder who will win?
What if they held an election and no one came?
So it looks like a race to stupid. I wonder who will win?
Very well could be. Judging from Alex, the liberals are in the lead.
LOL..Althouse really knows how to rile up her readers.
The Wisconsin Constitution was amended in 2006 to prohibit gay marriage and it has survived all challenges so far.
Domestic partnership/registry will not be an issue as long as gay marriage is banned in the state.
If you've got the money, honey, I've got the time.
Eh! Recently, a woman in Taiwan married herself. We've heard about the man who was forced to marry a goat cuz he had sex with it. A clock is within the realm of possibility.
Domestic partnership/registry will not be an issue as long as marriage is banned.
A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals is banned under the Wisconsin Constitution.
How do Domestic Partnerships not fall under that umbrella?
Unfortunately, people seem to get a lot of traction when they say "dog" or "child" instead of "clock", even though it's no less absurd.
Not to Warren Jeffs.
That would be stupid on the part of Republicans. They should be promoting and strengthening the domestic partnership regime, while at the same time making the case that it does for gays almost every practical thing that marriage does, and so there's no need to extend the definition of marriage.
Well, this is because Rebecca Kleefisch fundamentally views the relationship between gay lovers as lacking any real emotion, caring, or any of the other things we normally associate with love.
To her, gay people are just objects who relate to each other like the other person is a table or a clock. In this way, gay people are less than human.
Maybe Rebecca Kleefisch thinks that since gay people are less than human, we ought to round them up and kill them all? Perhaps that would make her, and the good Republican people of Wisconsin, feel better?
Do you mean tables like this one, from Clockwork Orange? (Possibly NSFW)
"What kind of person, looking for a vivid image, would come up with the idea of marrying a clock?"
According to Dead Julius, the kind of person (and not just her, mind you, but her entire political party) who wants to murder all the gays.
"I have never met Napoleon, but I plan to find the time."
The kind of person who wants to murder all the gays? You mean Muslims?
Trey
Marry a vibrator, Rebecca. It's reliable and does not leave the toilet seat up. (Or is it down? I can never remember.)
"What kind of person, looking for a vivid image, would come up with the idea of marrying a clock?"
Someone who appreciates a second hand.
DJ;
Maybe Rebecca Kleefisch thinks that since gay people are less than human, we ought to round them up and kill them all? Perhaps that would make her, and the good Republican people of Wisconsin, feel better?
You mean like Nazis?
There I did it for you, Godwin's Law implemented.
conversation over.
Not until election season, when they need to toss out some red meat for the homo-hatin' base.
Homosexuals are about 3% of the population and let the 1% of those have a domestic partnership and be done with it.
It's not that much more absurd than the image of two men or two women marrying each other.
It just illustrates how, given long enough and with enough propaganda, we can be persuaded to believe anything. I mean, if the guy's sexual preference is a clock fetish, who are the rest of us to deny him his bliss?
The only reason gays want to marry is for the validation they think it would give them. The problem with that is that no matter what, kids growing up who get fixated on their own sex, for whatever reason, are going to feel that there's something wrong in that they're different, and at that age, being different feels bad.
Psychologists who can't change person's neurosis, usually try to get the patient to accept it and move on. He doesn't get over the neurosis, but the therapist feels better.
Have you ever had a client who was sexually attracted to children or pubescent boys? I have, and I can't see any difference between their attraction and that of gays and lesbians, necrophiles or bestialites. The only real difference is that society condemns sexual abuse of children, but NAMBLA will tell you that's a violation of their rights.
Once you accept the first step beyond heterosexuality, you've lost the argument. Whatever a person's sexual "orientation," how can you be consistent and deny it to him/her.
AST wrote of pedophiles "The only real difference is that society condemns sexual abuse of children,"
So the fact that perpetrating children and teens causes them problems for the rest of their life is not a notable difference?
When an act causes harm, sometimes irreparable harm, do you really see it as inconsequental?
My religious beliefs condemn homosexual behavior as sinful, but lumping homosexuality with child abuse is inaccurate at the least, and insulting.
Trey
Kleefisch has cancer?
Karma - Gotta love it.
I can say flat out that DADvocate is a raging homphobe. Just because you have gay siblings doesn't give you a pass.
You vote for homophobes, you treat gays as second class citizens, and you're condescending and dismissive of gays who fight for their rights.
Sorry - you are a bigot through and through.
Of course it was a dumb statement, but it does exemplify the inherent problem with basing the right to marriage on the specious Constitutional "privacy right". If privacy gives one the right to perform any sex act, and thereafter the right to same sex marriage, what limit it there within the bounds of "privacy"? None that I can define.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा