Wednesday, October 21, 2009

ObamaWackos, Chapter 45,997: To Hell With Marriage

Another Obama nominee speaks.

I, for one, am not sure whether marriage is a normatively good institution. I have moved away from the belief that marriage is clearly the best normative way to structure intimate relationships, such that government should be actively supporting this social arrangement above all others.

That would be from Chai Feldblum, a law teacher or something, nominated to the EEOC, who also signed a 'manifesto' praising polygamy.

Is it possible for Obama to find even more nutballs and perversity-propounders to place in high-level positions in DC? I suppose so......or better, I fear so.

(At this time, no one has discovered any speech or writing from Ms. Feldblum praising Mao.)

HT: CMR

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Another anti-gay agenda through smear tactics by THEOCRATS. God loves everyone, not a select few!


holybulliesandheadlessmonsters.blogspot.com/2009/10/why-religious-right-fears-chai-feldblum.html

Dad29 said...

And who, exactly, denied that God loves everyone?

......but hates the sin?

Dan said...

Is she/he/it a Mormon?

Deekaman said...

There is a reason people post as "Anonymous". They lose any cred by doing so.

"Polygamy"? I can't even keep up with the one I got.

Why the country can't see who TCO is by who he surrounds himself with is beyond me. "Bread and Circuses", I suppose.

Amy said...

"Polygamy"? I can't even keep up with the one I got.

My husband often jokes the best argument against polygamy is that no guy in his right mind would want two women nagging him about housework. :)

Anonymous commenters post as anonymous because they don't have the courage of their convictions.

Anonymous said...

If you read the context surrounding the quote, she's saying that government should provide support for non-traditional arrangements, too.

For example, a widow who raises her kids with the support of, say, her friends or her own parents--why doesn't she get encouragement from the government the way married people do.

This is not an argument for polygamy, it's an argument for rethinking whether marriage is the only relationship government should be endorsing for the sake of child rearing.

Grim said...

For example, a widow who raises her kids with the support of, say, her friends or her own parents--why doesn't she get encouragement from the government the way married people do.

Married people pay 75% of all income taxes, while filing only 40 percent of returns; unmarried heads-of-household top the list of people receiving 'free money from the Federal government to change your life.'

Why should the government want to 'encourage' a model that reliably leads to failure and poverty, and produces tax-eaters rather than tax-payers? They receive all the 'encouragement' we can afford in welfare payments; but at some point, you have to face up to the fact that this model leads to poverty in this generation, and makes poverty in the next generation more likely. It shouldn't be encouraged, but avoided; and marriage, which provides not only stable families but the tax base for our governance, should be shored up as a matter of public policy.

AmericanPrinciples said...

Join our efforts to oppose the nomination of Chai Feldblum!

http://www.americanprinciplesproject.org/blogs/appapia-release-oppose-chai-feldblum.html