Wanna defend the sanctity of marriage? Criminalize infidelity.

[denverbill]

I don't get the Democrats in Congress anymore. They scurry around wondering how they can possibly vote against a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, but they ignore every possible way they could easily either sabotage it or score political points against the pukies.

The pukies promote this bill as 'defending the sanctity of marriage'. Well bullshit. It does NOTHING to defend marriage. If you want to defend marriage, one major way to do it would be to criminalize conduct that tends to break up marriages, like infidelity. Let's slap a provision into the amendment sending adulterers to jail for a couple years.

And then there is divorce. Ultimately, divorce is the ultimate assault on the sanctity of marriage. How can we possibly defend marriage when we allow people to get divorces? If we really want to defend marriage, ban divorce altogether. Let's get that into the amendment as well.

Even if the Democrats fail to get these measures into the bill, they'll have some nifty little campaign point scoring tools handy. Every time a Republican accuses them of destroying the sanctity of marriage, they can point out the fact that their opponent voted against making infidelity a crime.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. Do you have any idea what you're talking about at all?

You really think they're going to get a poison pill amendment slapped onto such a partisan issue??? You realize they have absolutely no control, outside of a filibuster, right?

On edit: No reasonable person would vote to make infidelity a crime and the vast majority of people would see through it.

[David__77]

2. There is no need for a filibuster.

A majority won't approve it. And even if they did, we don't need a filibuster--they need TWO-THIRDS for passage. They don't and won't have it. There moment of opportunity is rapidly passing. "Outrage" never materialized because most Americans simply DON'T CARE. And the more intelligent fundies know and fret over this fact.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

9. I understand all that...

I'm just saying that the filibuster is our ONLY power in the entire Congress (or federal government, for that matter)

[liberalhistorian]

5. Methnks you're missing

the deliberate sarcasm of his suggestion! He's not serious, he's just showing how stupid and ridiculous the repukes' claim that banning gay marriage is somehow protecting the "sanctity" of marriage.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

11. It doesn't seem that there's any sarcasm there

especially after his response...

[denverbill]

7. Well, what the hell do you think the Republicans are doing?

Do you really think that they believe they can get this Amendment passed by a 2/3 majority in the Senate? Hell no, they just want to force Democrats to take stands that they think will alienate large numbers of voters.

Democrats don't have to win these votes to score points, that's what I'm saying. All they have to do is propose them and get them to a roll call vote. I'd love to see Republicans defending infidelity in a debate.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

10. The point is...

Having a vote on this isn't quite clear enough to gullible America that it's ONLY a political decoy. That's pretty plain and clear based on polls. It would be perfectly clear that such a move WOULD be a political decoy, and it simply does not have a good enough risk/reward in our favor to justify doing it.

[denverbill]

16. I guess you don't mind them playing dirty tricks on Kerry.

Like scheduling votes when he is out of town to specifically make him look bad.

You would THINK that Americans would see through THAT political decoy, but you would be wrong.

You would THINK that Americans would be smart enough to see through the misleading ads Republicans are showing saying Kerry has voted to raise taxes like 500 times, but they aren't.

Write it up, put it to a vote, and call the Republicans out for protecting the 'sanctity of marriage' by disallowing gay marriage, but protecting adulterers. Let them be known for the hypocritical scumbags that they are.

[Career Prole]

3. Pffft! Like I heard Chris Rock say on his last HBO special

"Sanctity of marriage?! How can they talk about the sanctity of marriage when they're sittin' there watchin' "The Bachelor"...and "The Bachelorette"...and "Who Wants To Marry A Midget"?!"

[Toucano]

4. Or like Virginia Beach

stop prosecuting domestic violence cases.

http://www.vbgov.com/info/newsDetails/0,1145,2457,00.html

That aughta' keep 'em married!

(The prosecutor is, of course, a Republican).

[liberalhistorian]

8. I wonder if that idiot prosecutor

will continue, though, to prosecute sodomy cases;. I'm sure he'd do everything possible to find the money for that, of course! :puke: :puke: :puke: :mad:

[Nikki Stone 1]

6. Only the women get stoned for infidelity

Husbands would get community service.

[beyurslf]

12. I don't see any reason for Dems to fret about this.

People who care about passing this are not supporting us anyway. The fact a Dem coted for FMA will not make the religious right support them. (Zell Miller excluded.)
Vote against it. Say why. And move on. The American people will (mostly) not care. The supporters of FMA won't support you no matter what. And the people who are against FAM already support you and will continue to do so.

[Goldmund]

13. How about this idea?

Remove the concept of "sanctity" from all public discourse, since this is a secular country with secular laws.

[geniph]

21. No kidding!

(emphatic agreement here)

[Jade Fox]

14. How 'bout a "Three strikes and your out" marriage law?

If you've failed at three marriages, clearly you need to be banned from
commiting this sacred act again.

I nothing else it would prevent another Mrs. Limbaugh. :)

[denverbill]

17. Yeah, good point:).

Limbaugh is defiling the sanctity of marriage by frivilously getting married time after time. Sanctity of marriage my ass.

[dorktv]

15. There used to be infidelity laws on the books. They are almost

unenforceble and most have been repealed.

[denverbill]

19. I agree wholeheartedly.

However, you would think the Holy Joes in Congress would be demanding that we enforce at least a FEW of the 10 Commandments that they worship. Virtually every religion has serious prohibitions against it, usually sanctioned by death. Maybe a year in the cooler would make Newt Gingrich think twice before taking his next mistress.

[Warren DeMontague]

18. Actually...

I've come across plenty of "wild-eyed" (that's my new favorite adjective) religious right and culture war types who, with a perfectly straight face, will advocate criminal penalties for sex outside of marriage.

In fact, wasn't "adultery" one of the ones on Santorum's list, when he was getting all huffy before the Texas anti-sodomy law decision?

You know, we throw this kind of stuff out as an attempt to point up how ridiculous legislating personal morality is.. and you'll get no argument from me.. but we shouldn't forget that there are literally millions of people in this country who don't have any problem with it.. Remember, there are people in Texas who've been arrested -recently- for selling vibrators.

[denverbill]

20. In all honesty, a law against infidelity has more merit than one against

gay marriage.

Infidelity causes a helluva lot more pain than petty theft, drug use, or many other crimes that can result in jail time, and it's probably one of the leading causes of murder.

I'm not really suggesting we pass a law banning it, but to me, I can definitely see some merit to the idea.

[Warren DeMontague]

22. I dunno...

I land on the left-libertarian side of the political compass-- With a strong libertarian bent. I don't think the government has any business getting involved in what people do with their bodies, particularly their naughty bits, as long as consenting adult humans are the ones involved. In my view, passing laws criminalizing things to affect social change is a brainless knee-jerk instinct of the reactionary right. If infidelity leads someone to commit a crime, like murder, then punish the person for the murder. I'm not convinced that people should be let off the hook for their own actions to the extent that they argue that "drugs" or "infidelity" or whatever, "made" them commit a crime. Commit a real crime- like hurting someone, stealing something (and I think the behavior of Enron traders and execs fits into both those categories) then go to jail. Look, I'm married, and I can't see the point of my being married if I didn't intend to be faithful and monogamous. But that's between me and my wife, not me, my wife, and the cops. Sex between adults, drinking, drugs (provided you don't get behind the wheel and endanger others), those kinds of things, I don't believe should be the province of law enforcement at all. Period.

[denverbill]

23. Well, here's the thing.

It's not generally the adulterer that does the killing. It's the spouse who has been betrayed.

If you cheat on your wife (hypothetically, of course) it is 'just between you and her'. However, it's a fairly significant betrayal of trust, akin to a CEO embezzling from his company at least. You can steal someones life savings and still not hurt them as badly as if you ruin their marriage. Beating your wife may also just be between you and her, but I think it's in societies interest to intervene.

And I certainly wouldn't expect 'morality' police knocking down bedroom doors. I think the mere deterrent threat of jail time would eliminate some casual cheating. But if a wife found pretty clear proof of adultery that prosecutors could use, I could easily see that.

But, I'm not going to belabor the point too much. I'm not truly suggesting that I want such a law passed. I was only suggesting that a good case could be made that such a law would do more to protect marriage than an anti-gay marriage amendment.