I swear, do these people stay awake at nights trying to think up ridiculous pledges for the conservative right to sign? It’s like they are back in high school– “Do you like Ann? Yes, No. Check one.”
No middle ground, no way to check to see if Ann is a total Republican loon, no way to find out if Ann even cares if I like her, or make sure that it’s the Ann I’m thinking about. Bat-sh!t crazy Ann Coulter, or sweet NBC anchor Ann Curry. I really need more information.
But information isn’t something the Republicans want to provide or use. Information, facts and logic don’t fit with the conservative agenda. Whenever confronted with those, they begin screaming socialist or communist.
So what jobs-creating pledge have the Neo-Cons served up today? A pledge to not create any bill that will hinder job growth? Something that punishes corporations who lay off American employees while hiring over in China? Something that hold finance executives accountable for illegal and unethical home foreclosures?
Nah, marriage. More specifically what marriage is (in their eyes) and how to create more of their definition of marriage.
Personal fidelity to my spouse.
Wanna start placing bets on how long it will take for one of the undersigned to reveal he/she’s had a long-time affair?
Will Senator Vitter be signing this? What about old three-times married Newt?
Official fidelity to the U.S. Constitution, supporting the elevation of none but faithful constitutionalists as judges or justices.
This one’s a head scratcher…Are we means testing our justices? How in the world do faithful constitutionalists encourage marriage? I’m looking for feedback on this one.
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.
But let’s not put anything in here about abuse. Stay married no matter how many times he hits you…you’re doing for better sex and greater financial stability. Or is that prostitution?
Humane protection of women and the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy – 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.
Again, not seeing anything about protecting women and children from rape, abuse, or a lifetime of poverty. Oh, I forgot. If you are married, you live longer and have more financially stability.
Rejection of Sharia Islam and all other anti-woman, anti-human rights forms of totalitarian control.
So, we have freedom of religion with exceptions. The US Courts have recognized other religious law, but now we’re suddenly going to pick and choose which religions are acceptable? NOTE: that link does go to an NPR page, so conservatives might want to be careful before clicking on it–it might challenge your belief system.
Recognition that robust childbearing and reproduction is beneficial to U.S. demographic, economic, strategic and actuarial health and security.
Are they SERIOUSLY suggesting that we marry in order to have a better, more populated America? Then effective immediately, all marriages that are childless after one year, should be dissolved. After all, we need to save America.
Fierce defense of the First Amendment’s rights of Religious Liberty and Freedom of Speech, especially against the intolerance of any who would undermine law-abiding American citizens and institutions of faith and conscience for their adherence to, and defense of, faithful heterosexual monogamy.
They want to defend religious liberty and freedom of speech except when it undermines Christian religion and any speech they find offensive.
By the way, here’s a little gem that was originally in the pledge that Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum (for God’s sake, do NOT google him) signed:
Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was 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.
After several civil rights groups protested, Plaat’s removed the statement. How anyone could say that it is better to be a child of a slave in the 1860s vs. a child of a single parent today, it quite frankly, not coloring with a full box of crayons.
And while there is one line in the pledge about reducing the US’s trillion dollar debt, it offers nothing in the way of actual JOBS.
Quite frankly, I’m beginning to think the Republicans LIKE the economy in such dire straights. No one can AFFORD to get a divorce.