That’s Right Nate

In 2005, with the liberal and homosexual agendas making huge inroads in Texas, the state found itself in increasing danger of a referendum making gay marriage legal and ending life as they know it in the lone star state forever.   Now Texans, don’t cotton to those kind of changes and they sure don’t take them lying down.   A referendum was overwhelmingly passed that not only banned gay marriage, but also declared, “This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”

The state of Texas had spoken.  In order to prevent homosexuals from getting married, the state would no longer recognize marriage of any kind.  This was the ultimate act of self-sacrifice for many longtime married couples in the state.  It must have been quite a shock for a lot of children in the state to learn that not only were their parents not married, but neither were their grandparents.  When asked for comment,  Jerry Strickland, a representative for the Texas Attorney General said, “The Texas Constitution and the marriage statute are entirely constitutional. We will continue to defend both in court.”

Kelly Shackelford, president of the Liberty Legal Institute in Plano explained the language was designed to be broad enough to prevent the creation of domestic partnerships, civil unions or other arrangements that would give same-sex couples many of the benefits of marriage.  In fact, it prevents two lesbians and two gay men from engaging in heterosexual marriages and then simply swapping partners to get around legal restrictions.

As a non-Texan I can only admire this kind of bravery.  It reminds me of the scorched Earth techniques used to frustrate Napoleon and later Hitler.   By sacrificing their own marriages Texas has struck a blow to defend the sanctity of those very marriages that they can no longer have.   I believe there is a lesson here for the rest of us.

This map shows how I would divide gay marriage and non-gay marriage states. The West would be set aside as territories.

In  my article on Miss USA, I promised that today I would present my compromise idea for gay marriage.  Well, here it is.  I think this would eliminate a lot of trouble.

One of the biggest misconceptions about Republicans is that we hate gays.  We don’t.  We simply hate their disgusting and grotesque immoral behavior not the gays themselves.   They cut our hair, decorate our homes, and play lovable sidekicks on our situation comedies.  In fact, there is a group called the Log Cabin Republicans made up of a handful of gay Republicans who shared a cabin together one summer.   We may only have a handful of gays voting for us, but we do have those guys.  We love the sinner, not the sin.

I have been trying to come up with a solution to the whole gay marriage thing so that as a country we can move past it and I think I may have found one.   Let’s face the facts.   Gays really can’t get married no matter what we call it.  It’ll always be different from our opposite marriages.  That doesn’t mean their relationships shouldn’t get some sort of protection.   Even in states that allow gay marriage, homosexual couples actually have to file 2 different tax forms–one as a couple for the state and then seperately for the federal government.  If there is one thing Republicans hate, its complicated income tax.

I decided that gay marriage should count for something.   I guess its better than half a marriage, but how much?  It certainly isn’t worth 75% of a marriage.  I decided in an admittedly arbitrary way that a gay marriage should count for 3/5 of a marriage.   If one gay spouse dies, their partner would be eligible for 60% of survivor benefits.  They would be able to visit a partner in the hospital, but only 60% of the time.  Couples could file jointly, but their savings would only be at 60%.  In this way we recognize their sinful and repulsive relationship and don’t hold it up to the same status as opposite marriage.

I would also suggest that since the states that allow gay marriage are in the North, we should set a line at the Arkansas and Missouri border.  Anything South of that line should not allow gay marriage.  Anything North of that line should allow it, but only as 60% of a marriage.  I guess we would have to have wacko left coast states allow the 60% marriage and it wouldn’t fly in the mountain west at all.   This great 3/5 compromise will allow us to get on with other important issues.  It is an idea whose times has come.

Florida resident Jose Canseco can rest easy knowing that the sanctity of his marriage has been protected.

Florida may just be the bravest state in the Union.  Last week, Floridians voted more than 60% in favorite of Amenment 2 which stated “Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.”

Obviously, this is a wonderful step forward for Florida in protecting the sanctity of marriage regardless of the consequences for single people living in the state.  As similiar law passed in Florida has been used to strip heterosexual singles of their rights including alimony, estate planning and domestic partnership registries, but hey Florida has always been willing to sacrifice to make a point.

As the courts begin the process of figuring out if it would undo the benefits that gays and lesbians now have through their employers’ same-sex insurance policies and whether heterosexual couples with domestic-partner agreements would be affected, it is good to know that the will of the voters has spoken instead of 12 unelected judges and I for one can’t think of a better use of our tax dollars. To those single people who have given up their own rights to make sure that gay people didn’t enjoy similar rights I say, “well done”.

Wow, thank goodness he didn’t win the primary.  After Slick Willie another adulterer in the White House is just what we needed.  I hope people are paying attention to this.  You never hear about Republicans having affairs like this.  I think that’s the difference between the two parties–integrity.  Of course it is easy for somebody like Obama to be a flip-flopper.  Democrats don’t even take their wedding vows seriously.  When McCain gives his ward on something you know its his bond.

Maybe that’s why the Democrats are so in favor of gay marriage–because they don’t take marriage seriously in the first place.  I think those Democrats in public office need to make a choice.  Do you wish to stand with the adulterers like Clinton, Edwards, and Obama or do you wish to join those with family values like John McCain and George Bush.

For those few Democrats that want to uphold the sanctity of the American family, I reccomend getting onboard with Congressmen like David Vitter and Larry Craig who are co-sponsoring S.J. Res 43–a joint resolution to propose a Constitutional amendment to  limit marriage to a relationship between one man and one woman.  I say its about time.  This is a culture war and the sides are clearly drawn.

President Bush has been meeting with Saudi Arabia in an attempt to ease the oil situation and then in Israel to condemn Barrack Obama’s foreign policy of diplomacy.

However, I’m curious to see what he thinks about the California looney left courts subverting the will of the people.  Republicans like myself will not stand for one person (It was a 4-3 decision) overturning the will of thousands of voters.

Let’s face it.  In this country people should be judged by their own worth and like a lot of conservatives I do not believe that special rights should be awarded to people based on their sexual orientation.  There are already laws in place to protect everybody and that means gays too.  Special rights and priveledges like the right to get married should not be given to homosexuals.  That’s not just my view, but the view of many fine organizations like http://www.nospecialrights.net/sbincc.html who do not believe in giving rights to gays that we heterosexuals don’t have.

I’ll be the first to admit that like Rush Limbaugh I’ve never really found that one special woman.  However, as I look at the Elliot Spitzer thing as well as the relationships of Republicans some things come to mind.

Unlike the freaky marriages that many democrats have, the Republicans do a pretty good job of finding romance.

When asked if he ever thought about divorcing his wife, Heston once said, “Murder many times, but divorce never.”  I love that line.  They married young and shared their entire life together.

John McCain was not as lucky.  He didn’t find love the first time around.  He fooled around on his wife and he admits he regretted it.  When he did the honorable thing and stopped the charade he gave her a very generous divorce settlement including financial support for her ongoing medical problems.  Then he found Cindy and with Cindy it was love.  They have been married 28 years now and still enjoy the playful banter of newlyweds.  In a new book Cliff Schecter relates of one flirtatious moment:

“Three reporters from Arizona, on the condition of anonymity, also let me in on another incident involving McCain’s intemperateness. In his 1992 Senate bid, McCain was joined on the campaign trail by his wife, Cindy, as well as campaign aide Doug Cole and consultant Wes Gullett. At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain’s hair and said, “You’re getting a little thin up there.” McCain’s face reddened, and he responded, “At least I don’t plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you c*** (rhymes with hunt).”

Say what you will about McCain, but old couples don’t play around like that.  The verbal back and forth show a couple still very much in love and the kind of couple we should have in the White House.  It kind of reminds me of when Moonlighting was good.