Karl Rove granted a sacred divorce

[jonks]

This thread is about Karl Rove getting a divorce. This is an accepted norm in our society.

I wasn't the one trying to make more out of it than it is...

Seriously ...... I mean who really cares that Rove got a divorce. Why is this even noteworthy? People get divorced every day ...... thousands of them and I'm sure many of them are Democrats who are just as hypocritical as Rove.
Move along ...... nothing to see here.

I'm afraid there is something to see here. When the architecht of presidential elections employs the strategy of protecting the sanctity of traditional marriage as a fearmongering stick to gin up support for his candidate and yet cavalierly desposes of this sacred institution as the mood hits him, then the whole point of his message should be called into question.

How sacred can something be, that one can swear before god to preserve it until death, that one must protect against attack at all costs, to the point of depriving other lifelong couples the benefits and recognition the institution represents, when that same fragile institution can be discarded at will? The answer is obvious, there's nothing sacred about a marriage contract in the eyes of the law; it's just a contract to be disolved by the parties pursuant to state law. Now, if we actually treat this contract for what it is, a secular document representing the rights and benefits of the couple, maybe we can someday live in as just a society as South Africa and Argentina.

 

[Fear No Evil]

I'm afraid there is something to see here. When the architecht of presidential elections employs the strategy of protecting the sanctity of traditional marriage as a fearmongering stick to gin up support for his candidate and yet cavalierly desposes of this sacred institution as the mood hits him, then the whole point of his message should be called into question.

How sacred can something be, that one can swear before god to preserve it until death, that one must protect against attack at all costs, to the point of depriving other lifelong couples the benefits and recognition the institution represents, when that same fragile institution can be discarded at will? The answer is obvious, there's nothing sacred about a marriage contract in the eyes of the law; it's just a contract to be disolved by the parties pursuant to state law. Now, if we actually treat this contract for what it is, a secular document representing the rights and benefits of the couple, maybe we can someday live in as just a society as South Africa and Argentina.

Still waiting for you libs to move like you promised after GWB was elected. Sounds like you have 2 good places.

 

[Fear No Evil]

I'm assuming there is no problem with discrediting Al Gore and man-made global warming using this same line of reasoning right?

 

[heyheybooboo]

Judge on Rove’s citizen arrest: ‘It’s about time.’





--

 

[Avvocato Effetti]

Thing thing I admire most about Rove is his warrior heart.

He truly understood that the Democratic party and the positions it supported were/are evil.

When you are at war, the only objective is victory.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Troll sez, "What?"

--

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I'm afraid there is something to see here. When the architecht of presidential elections employs the strategy of protecting the sanctity of traditional marriage as a fearmongering stick to gin up support for his candidate and yet cavalierly desposes of this sacred institution as the mood hits him, then the whole point of his message should be called into question.

How sacred can something be, that one can swear before god to preserve it until death, that one must protect against attack at all costs, to the point of depriving other lifelong couples the benefits and recognition the institution represents, when that same fragile institution can be discarded at will? The answer is obvious, there's nothing sacred about a marriage contract in the eyes of the law; it's just a contract to be disolved by the parties pursuant to state law. Now, if we actually treat this contract for what it is, a secular document representing the rights and benefits of the couple, maybe we can someday live in as just a society as South Africa and Argentina.

I could be wrong, but I don't remember any direct comments from Rove on this matter. If you could provide specific quotes/examples that came directly from Rove I would appreciate it and it would make the case for his hypocrisy. The charge has been made by you and yours - can you provide the evidence? If so, I will join in your condemnation of the man for this issue.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Judge on Rove’s citizen arrest: ‘It’s about time.’





--

political opinions from the bench in Des Moines? :shocked;

 

[jonks]

I could be wrong, but I don't remember any direct comments from Rove on this matter. If you could provide specific quotes/examples that came directly from Rove I would appreciate it and it would make the case for his hypocrisy. The charge has been made by you and yours - can you provide the evidence? If so, I will join in your condemnation of the man for this issue.

Direct quotes from him, as on Meet the Press, are purported to be on behalf of what W believed, i.e. "5000 years of human history shouldn't be overturned by activist judges", which of course didn't stop the opposition from complaining just as loudly when legislatures passed bills to the same effect; it's not the method that offends them.

But the issue with Rove particularly is that in his reachout to evangelicals in the 2004 reelection campaign, Rove's well documented (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/07/06/evangelicals/index.html) strategy was to get as many states to put anti-gay marriage amendments on state ballots so that the evangelical base would come out to vote by telling them that if they didn't gay marriage would forever plague them and the country. This effort was rather appallingly successful.

Appealing to peoples' base instincts in a fever pitch of the (nonexistent) horrors that might come if Jim and Bob got hitched while ignoring the much more dire effects upon society and families from the epidemic divorce rate is an exercise in cynicism. Lucky for him we're a pretty cynical country.

 

[Avvocato Effetti]

Jonks,

Christians aren’t looking to Karl Rove or the federal government to protect marriage.

We do not object to same sex individuals forming a legal union that has all the legal rights of a marriage. This is a concession that many of us believe is necessary in order to keep peace among heathens. Society has deteriorated to the point where this is a necessity. We do object to this union being included in the language as a “marriage”.

In our minds, marriage is a religious term that defines the spiritual joining of a man and woman. By our definition, two men or two women cannot be “married” as God defines it.

Regardless of the acts of the State and Federal government, same sex unions will never be accepted as legitimate by Christians.

 

[LumbergTech]

Jonks,

Christians aren’t looking to Karl Rove or the federal government to protect marriage.

We do not object to same sex individuals forming a legal union that has all the legal rights of a marriage. This is a concession that many of us believe is necessary in order to keep peace among heathens. Society has deteriorated to the point where this is a necessity. We do object to this union being included in the language as a “marriage”.

In our minds, marriage is a religious term that defines the spiritual joining of a man and woman. By our definition, two men or two women cannot be “married” as God defines it.

Regardless of the acts of the State and Federal government, same sex unions will never be accepted as legitimate by Christians.

Way to completely avoid the whole point. Christians are hypocrites on the issue and yet try to use their numbers to control who can and can't get married. I think that this battle will be won in a matter of about 20 years. Society is much more accepting of gays in general than it ever has been. It will continue to go down this path. What christians accept is quite irrelevant in the face of progress.

Let me ask you a question. Why should I care what someone says about marriage being illegal for gays when they have broken their vows? A majority of the United States calls itself christian and yet there is a very large percentage of divorce. If you only take into account those christians who have never been divorced, you have a much smaller group. Your demands seem a bit hollow when you eliminate the hypocrites.

 

[Craig234]

Jonks,

Christians aren?t looking to Karl Rove or the federal government to protect marriage.

We do not object to same sex individuals forming a legal union that has all the legal rights of a marriage. This is a concession that many of us believe is necessary in order to keep peace among heathens. Society has deteriorated to the point where this is a necessity. We do object to this union being included in the language as a ?marriage?.

In our minds, marriage is a religious term that defines the spiritual joining of a man and woman. By our definition, two men or two women cannot be ?married? as God defines it.

Regardless of the acts of the State and Federal government, same sex unions will never be accepted as legitimate by Christians.

There are many points to make in response to your terribly flawed post, but I especially want to ask the one relevant to this thread:

Why isn't divorce mentioned in your post as something your faction of Christians is equally opposed to with gay equal rights to marriage? Will you 'never accept' laws allowing divorce either?

If not, why isn't that hypocritical of you?

 

[fskimospy]

Jonks,

Christians aren’t looking to Karl Rove or the federal government to protect marriage.

We do not object to same sex individuals forming a legal union that has all the legal rights of a marriage. This is a concession that many of us believe is necessary in order to keep peace among heathens. Society has deteriorated to the point where this is a necessity. We do object to this union being included in the language as a “marriage”.

In our minds, marriage is a religious term that defines the spiritual joining of a man and woman. By our definition, two men or two women cannot be “married” as God defines it.

Regardless of the acts of the State and Federal government, same sex unions will never be accepted as legitimate by Christians.

Last time I checked less than half of Christians supported civil unions either. (it may have changed marginally since then) So that's incorrect, many many Christians have a problem with it.

If you believe marriage to be a spiritual union, would you be for banning marriage between atheists?

 

[Avvocato Effetti]

Way to completely avoid the whole point. Christians are hypocrites on the issue and yet try to use their numbers to control who can and can't get married. I think that this battle will be won in a matter of about 20 years. Society is much more accepting of gays in general than it ever has been. It will continue to go down this path. What christians accept is quite irrelevant in the face of progress.

Let me ask you a question. Why should I care what someone says about marriage being illegal for gays when they have broken their vows? A majority of the United States calls itself christian and yet there is a very large percentage of divorce. If you only take into account those christians who have never been divorced, you have a much smaller group. Your demands seem a bit hollow when you eliminate the hypocrites.

Which point am I “avoiding”? This thread has developed multiple sub points. My post is apropos to the direction of the thread as it unfolds. My advise to you, use your energy to focus on productive arguments instead of gratuitous insults. Dig?

No one has argued that Christians are not susceptible to acts of hypocrisy. God is not susceptible acts of hypocrisy. Would you agree?

What battle are you trying to “win”. We are willing to give you the identical legal protections that marriage provides. Do you think in 20 years that God will change his mind? Do you think he will say, “you know, I was wrong, I ment all along that same sex individuals should have sex and procreate by use of high tech medical discoveries”. (laughter erupts from the Christians reading this post)

You need to refocus your argument and direct it away from Christians. Christians are forgiven but make many mistakes. Direct your argument toward God. I’ll act as his Attorney in Fact. His principles are unshakable.

There are many points to make in response to your terribly flawed post, but I especially want to ask the one relevant to this thread:

Why isn't divorce mentioned in your post as something your faction of Christians is equally opposed to with gay equal rights to marriage? Will you 'never accept' laws allowing divorce either?

If not, why isn't that hypocritical of you?

Terribly flawed post? Why don’t we start by citing that code in the system that defines this “terribly flawed post provision”. What rules are in place whereby you can make that assertion? Stick to to subject and offer coherent thoughts and concepts.

This argument advanced by the left that the divorce issue is “kryptonite” as it pertains to the marriage debate is flawed. You must understand that it is God who is the standard, not his sons.

Carry on.

()

 

[Craig234]

Thing thing I admire most about Rove is his warrior heart.

He truly understood that the Democratic party and the positions it supported were/are evil.

When you are at war, the only objective is victory.

You make Al Queda look good. That's not easy.

Edit: repeating the question you dodged.

Why isn't divorce mentioned in your post as something your faction of Christians is equally opposed to with gay equal rights to marriage? Will you 'never accept' laws allowing divorce either?

If not, why isn't that hypocritical of you?

 

[Avvocato Effetti]

You make Al Queda look good. That's not easy.

Understand this, Christians are destined to rule and reign. Our resolve is firm, aggressive and unshakable. In this, we are similar to Al Qaeda

The operative difference, we are benevolent and they are malevolent. We desire for you to join us in the certainty of our cause. That cause is to gather as many souls as possible into our joy!

Join us and travel as a victor into eternity.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Understand this, Christians are destined to rule and reign. Our resolve is firm, aggressive and unshakable ...

Join us and travel as a victor into eternity.

--

 

[Avvocato Effetti]

Last time I checked less than half of Christians supported civil unions either. (it may have changed marginally since then) So that's incorrect, many many Christians have a problem with it.

If you believe marriage to be a spiritual union, would you be for banning marriage between atheists?

This isn’t a boardroom where majority rules. It is God and God alone who forms the standard.

Christians who do not agree with God must come to the truth. Heathens have to be dealt with and governed by use of a laborious ever changing code.

Marriage is the union of a man and a women. If an atheist unites with a person of the opposite sex, he/she has participated in a Godly event.

Onward and upward!

:awe:

 

[Avvocato Effetti]

You make Al Queda look good. That's not easy.

Edit: repeating the question you dodged.

Why isn't divorce mentioned in your post as something your faction of Christians is equally opposed to with gay equal rights to marriage? Will you 'never accept' laws allowing divorce either?

If not, why isn't that hypocritical of you?

Read what I have written again.

Christians are not the standard to be used, God and God alone is capable of maintaining the true, the complete, that which is forever integral and the unshakable standard.

Continue to to the summit!


()

 

[werepossum]

Jonks,

Christians aren’t looking to Karl Rove or the federal government to protect marriage.

We do not object to same sex individuals forming a legal union that has all the legal rights of a marriage. This is a concession that many of us believe is necessary in order to keep peace among heathens. Society has deteriorated to the point where this is a necessity. We do object to this union being included in the language as a “marriage”.

In our minds, marriage is a religious term that defines the spiritual joining of a man and woman. By our definition, two men or two women cannot be “married” as God defines it.

Regardless of the acts of the State and Federal government, same sex unions will never be accepted as legitimate by Christians.

That puts you in the position of defending not a principle, but a word. If civil unions become legal for gays, we now have two separate bodies of law that start out equal but will eventually and inevitably diverge. For those of us who would like the Love That Dare Not Speak Its Name to shut the hell up for awhile, this doesn't cut it. Inevitably the same people who oppose gay marriage will try to differentiate between rights for civil unions and rights for "real marriage", which means this debate and struggle continues for years. Much better in my opinion to say whatever doesn't not materially affect you should be between gays and G-d; you remain free to not accept it as legitimate. Right now a gay man has the same literal right - to marry a woman - as does a straight man. If a gay man marrying a woman isn't an unacceptable affront to G-d - and most people accept that there is no practical way to block that - why not extend his right to the same functional right - to marry whomever he wishes? There are surely many more things that strike you as morally wrong but which you tolerate as legal.

Heyheybooboo, you do realize that you end up looking foolish unless you actually make him say "what", right? That's kinda how that thing works.

 

[Avvocato Effetti]

That puts you in the position of defending not a principle, but a word. If civil unions become legal for gays, we now have two separate bodies of law that start out equal but will eventually and inevitably diverge. For those of us who would like the Love That Dare Not Speak Its Name to shut the hell up for awhile, this doesn't cut it. Inevitably the same people who oppose gay marriage will try to differentiate between rights for civil unions and rights for "real marriage", which means this debate and struggle continues for years. Much better in my opinion to say whatever doesn't not materially affect you should be between gays and G-d; you remain free to not accept it as legitimate. Right now a gay man has the same literal right - to marry a woman - as does a straight man. If a gay man marrying a woman isn't an unacceptable affront to G-d - and most people accept that there is no practical way to block that - why not extend his right to the same functional right - to marry whomever he wishes? There are surely many more things that strike you as morally wrong but which you tolerate as legal.

Heyheybooboo, you do realize that you end up looking foolish unless you actually make him say "what", right? That's kinda how that thing works.

My My. So much error. So little time.

If you are not part of the family, you should not dare to speak his name. You should crawl on your knees in a state of hushed reverence. You are not to speak until spoken to. Your opinion carries no weight in the court of my King.

The only struggle that will continue is the struggle of the heathen who refuses to accept the absolute authority of the Word of God. For those who have joined the family, there is no struggle . There is only the calming waters of a peaceful eternity.

Advancing the concept that there is no way to block same sex individuals from joining is not correct. As I have stated, we will allow you to join in order to keep the peace as we travel to the time.

The future is bright!

()

:sneaky:

 

[Avvocato Effetti]

Crickets. Crickets. Crickets.

 

[Ozoned]

I'm afraid there is something to see here. When the architecht of presidential elections employs the strategy of protecting the sanctity of traditional marriage as a fearmongering stick to gin up support for his candidate and yet cavalierly desposes of this sacred institution as the mood hits him, then the whole point of his message should be called into question.

How sacred can something be, that one can swear before god to preserve it until death, that one must protect against attack at all costs, to the point of depriving other lifelong couples the benefits and recognition the institution represents, when that same fragile institution can be discarded at will? The answer is obvious, there's nothing sacred about a marriage contract in the eyes of the law; it's just a contract to be disolved by the parties pursuant to state law. Now, if we actually treat this contract for what it is, a secular document representing the rights and benefits of the couple, maybe we can someday live in as just a society as South Africa and Argentina.

On one side, you have a group of people that try to advance their agenda, legislatively.
On the other side, you have a group of people opposing that agenda, legislatively.

It just isn't fair, is it?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Direct quotes from him, as on Meet the Press, are purported to be on behalf of what W believed, i.e. "5000 years of human history shouldn't be overturned by activist judges", which of course didn't stop the opposition from complaining just as loudly when legislatures passed bills to the same effect; it's not the method that offends them.

But the issue with Rove particularly is that in his reachout to evangelicals in the 2004 reelection campaign, Rove's well documented (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/07/06/evangelicals/index.html) strategy was to get as many states to put anti-gay marriage amendments on state ballots so that the evangelical base would come out to vote by telling them that if they didn't gay marriage would forever plague them and the country. This effort was rather appallingly successful.

Appealing to peoples' base instincts in a fever pitch of the (nonexistent) horrors that might come if Jim and Bob got hitched while ignoring the much more dire effects upon society and families from the epidemic divorce rate is an exercise in cynicism. Lucky for him we're a pretty cynical country.

1st quote- yep and has nothing to do with divorce.
2nd quote - oh wait there isn't one. So what you have so far is nothing but the assignment of a political strategy to get "evangelicals" to vote - which you somehow translate to "hypocrisy".

Like I stated, I'll gladly accept the bashing IF you can find direct quotes/examples of hypocrisy but so far this evidence hasn't been produced.

 

[soundforbjt]

Thing thing I admire most about Rove is his warrior heart.

Yes, I remember his valiant service in the armed forces....oops, more like a chickenhawk heart.