Republicans: Humping for a cause…

Echidne points out that, if you’re not shooting out babies like a pez dispenser, you’re part of the problem:

“When you talk about protecting marriage, you need to talk about divorce,” said Bryce Christensen, a Southern Utah University professor who writes frequently about family issues.

While Christensen doesn’t oppose the campaign to enact state and federal bans on gay marriage, he worries it’s distracting from immediate threats to marriage’s place in society.

“If those initiatives are part of a broader effort to reaffirm lifetime fidelity in marriage, they’re worthwhile,” he said. “If they’re isolated – if we don’t address cohabitation and casual divorce and deliberate childlessness – then I think they’re futile and will be brushed aside.”

I hope that you are prepared for this. I especially like the idea that they are going to address deliberate childlessness in marriage. What would addressing that entail? Requiring fertility checks of couples who have not reproduced within some reasonable period of time? Or banning all contraception? The latter is more likely. The plan would also have to address women’s economic independence as that makes divorce easier, and I wouldn’t be surprised if there was emphasis on the need to reinstall a male-dominated family structure even among nonbelievers. After all, it is the institution of traditional marriage that is to be saved here.

In their world, the Santorums with six kids* are going to be the norm while the Gurdon’s, with a measly four, will be seen as underachievers.

(*we’re not going to count Gabriel whose short life took on monumentally creepy proportions)

Previous post

Freepers react to the anti-abortion provision tucked in spending bill

Next post

Rehnquist's condition is under wraps more than KFC's secret recipe



Yeah. Like I would tell you....