Gays Apologize for Destroying Scandal-Plagued Republican’s Marriage

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Last week, in the wake of a hot-and-heavy extramarital affair with a male staffer and multiple reprimands from her own Republican party, Minnesota Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch apologized and resigned. But the affair wasn't her fault: Two years ago, Koch co-authored a Defense of Marriage bill declaring, "A marriage between a man and a woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in Minnesota." The bill did not pass, and consequently the institution of marriage was so degraded that Koch had no choice but to jump in bed with a hot hunk of burning political staffer man love, thereby cheating on her husband.

Minnesota's gays are so sorry that this happened. One Gay, speaking on behalf of All Gays (according to my knowledge of Glee that's how they communicate, like a hive of bees) issued an apology in the pages of Twin Cities alt-weekly City Pages:

An Open Apology to Amy Koch on Behalf of All Gay and Lesbian Minnesotans

Dear Ms. Koch,

On behalf of all gays and lesbians living in Minnesota, I would like to wholeheartedly apologize for our community's successful efforts to threaten your traditional marriage. We are ashamed of ourselves for causing you to have what the media refers to as an "illicit affair" with your staffer, and we also extend our deepest apologies to him and to his wife. These recent events have made it quite clear that our gay and lesbian tactics have gone too far, affecting even the most respectful of our society.

We apologize that our selfish requests to marry those we love has cheapened and degraded traditional marriage so much that we caused you to stray from your own holy union for something more cheap and tawdry. And we are doubly remorseful in knowing that many will see this as a form of sexual harassment of a subordinate.

It is now clear to us that if we were not so self-focused and myopic, we would have been able to see that the time you wasted diligently writing legislation that would forever seal the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman, could have been more usefully spent reshaping the legal definition of "adultery."

Forgive us. As you know, we are not church-going people, so we are unable to fully appreciate that "gay marriage" is incompatible with Christian values, despite the fact that those values carry a biblical tradition of adultery such as yours. We applaud you for keeping that tradition going.

And finally, shame on us for thinking that marriage is a private affair, and that our marriage would have little impact on anyone's family. We now see that marriage is more than that. It is an agreement with society. We should listen to the Minnesota Family Council when it tells us that marriage is about being public, which explains why marriages are public ceremonies. Never did we realize that it is exactly because of this societal agreement that the entire world is looking at you in shame and disappointment instead of minding its own business.

From the bottom of our hearts, we ask that you please accept our apology.

Thank you.

John Medeiros

Minneapolis MN

http://gawker.com/58...licans-marriage

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Last week, in the wake of a hot-and-heavy extramarital affair with a male staffer and multiple reprimands from her own Republican party, Minnesota Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch apologized and resigned. But the affair wasn't her fault: Two years ago, Koch co-authored a Defense of Marriage bill declaring, "A marriage between a man and a woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in Minnesota." The bill did not pass, and consequently the institution of marriage was so degraded that Koch had no choice but to jump in bed with a hot hunk of burning political staffer man love, thereby cheating on her husband.

Minnesota's gays are so sorry that this happened. One Gay, speaking on behalf of All Gays (according to my knowledge of Glee that's how they communicate, like a hive of bees) issued an apology in the pages of Twin Cities alt-weekly City Pages:

An Open Apology to Amy Koch on Behalf of All Gay and Lesbian Minnesotans

Dear Ms. Koch,

On behalf of all gays and lesbians living in Minnesota, I would like to wholeheartedly apologize for our community's successful efforts to threaten your traditional marriage. We are ashamed of ourselves for causing you to have what the media refers to as an "illicit affair" with your staffer, and we also extend our deepest apologies to him and to his wife. These recent events have made it quite clear that our gay and lesbian tactics have gone too far, affecting even the most respectful of our society.

We apologize that our selfish requests to marry those we love has cheapened and degraded traditional marriage so much that we caused you to stray from your own holy union for something more cheap and tawdry. And we are doubly remorseful in knowing that many will see this as a form of sexual harassment of a subordinate.

It is now clear to us that if we were not so self-focused and myopic, we would have been able to see that the time you wasted diligently writing legislation that would forever seal the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman, could have been more usefully spent reshaping the legal definition of "adultery."

Forgive us. As you know, we are not church-going people, so we are unable to fully appreciate that "gay marriage" is incompatible with Christian values, despite the fact that those values carry a biblical tradition of adultery such as yours. We applaud you for keeping that tradition going.

And finally, shame on us for thinking that marriage is a private affair

, and that our marriage would have little impact on anyone's family. We now see that marriage is more than that. It is an agreement with society. We should listen to the Minnesota Family Council when it tells us that marriage is about being public, which explains why marriages are public ceremonies. Never did we realize that it is exactly because of this societal agreement that the entire world is looking at you in shame and disappointment instead of minding its own business.

From the bottom of our hearts, we ask that you please accept our apology.

Thank you.

John Medeiros

Minneapolis MN

http://gawker.com/58...licans-marriage

Oh the bolded is RICH, absolutely rich.

Private affair, eh? Is that why you're trying to get homosexual marriages PUBLICLY recognized???

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

Marriage is a contract and as such creates private rights that can be enforced publicly at law.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

There is no shrtage of heterosexuals making a mockery of marriage. I know some conservatives feel it is the gays that "threaten marraige" but I do not think any individuals threaten the institution itself. Is what you make it and that is all.

The ONLY people that can threaten my marriage are my wife and myself.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Marriage is a contract and as such creates private rights that can be enforced publicly at law.

It's not a private contract however. It's a very public one.

Any contract can be enforced through civil action, which is exactly what happens during divorce proceedings. A civil case in family court.

The idea that government has to be involved from the onset is completely absurd. It's just as easy to draft your own paperwork ( or have an attorney do it ) and take care of business yourself.

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

It's not a private contract however. It's a very public one.

Any contract can be enforced through civil action, which is exactly what happens during divorce proceedings. A civil case in family court.

It's a private contract that creates rights that are enforceable publicly, as I said. How does that conflict with what you said? Furthermore it isn't a public contract, which has a specific definition. Lots of info in Title 41of the US Code: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sup_01_41.html

[Obama 2012 1,714]

It's a private contract that creates rights that are enforceable publicly, as I said. How does that conflict with what you said? Furthermore it isn't a public contract, which has a specific definition. Lots of info in Title 41of the US Code: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sup_01_41.html

It's very public. I can pull up and view any marriage license I want to right now. There's nothing private about a marriage contract at all. The contract might be between two "private" individuals, but the contract itself it is very public. The moment the government is involved in it, it is public.

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

It's very public. I can pull up and view any marriage license I want to right now. There's nothing private about a marriage contract at all. The contract might be between two "private" individuals, but the contract itself it is very public. The moment the government is involved in it, it is public.

Sorry, it isn't a public contract. You and I can bicker about it but it is not a public contract as defined at law.

Think about it this way -- let's say I agree to buy a building, a garage and some land from Joe Smith. Joe assures me that the land comes with the right of way to access to the garage. As it turns out, the land doesn't have this easement. I sue Joe in civil court. The government in the form of the judiciary gets involved to determine whether or not my private right to enjoy my land has been affected. Whether or not parties choose to settle outside the court, the court is always involved. This doesn't make the contract I had with Joe "public" any more than a marriage contract is somehow public.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The ONLY people that can threaten my marriage are my wife and myself.

While truer words have never been spoken, in Republican circles, only an imbecile would have a thought like this.

It's very public. I can pull up and view any marriage license I want to right now.

No, you cannot. My marriage license is not visible to you in any way, shape or form. So stop lying.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

While truer words have never been spoken, in Republican circles, only an imbecile would have a thought like this.

No, you cannot. My marriage license is not visible to you in any way, shape or form. So stop lying.

Marriage licenses are visible to the public in most states...or at least the data within them is.

Edited January 4, 2012 by Sousuke

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Marriage licenses are visible to the public in most states...or at least the data within them is.

Mine isn't and wouldn't be whatever state I happen to live in or have lived in when I got married. Paul claimed to be able to pull up and view any marriage license he wanted to right now. How simply cannot. It's a lie. Period.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Mine isn't and wouldn't be whatever state I happen to live in or have lived in when I got married. Paul claimed to be able to pull up and view any marriage license he wanted to right now. How simply cannot. It's a lie. Period.

What state were you married in?

Generally speaking you have to go to the county clerk office in person.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

What state were you married in?

Generally speaking you have to go to the county clerk office in person.

None. You could go to every county clerk's office in the country and still come up empty. Why? Well, I married overseas. I know countless people that did. I suspect that a great amount of people on this here board married outside the US.

Edited January 4, 2012 by Mr. Big Dog

[Danno 1,228]

Of course the lame premise here is that because Hetro marriage is often times a failure we should (as a society)

therefor accept any other definition. (suggesting it can't get worse)

This is as silly as saying: Because people eating traditional foods are sometimes unhealthy.... any other food should be culturally / legally acceptable.

So who is for eating Dogs meat or cat meat? SHould we abolish laws which prevent the eating of human flesh... even when the flesh comes donated from the willing?

The institution of marriage plays a number of roles the States primary interest is -the preservation of a society.

While it's true we have social decomposition taking place within marriage and families in general, one of the ways to hasten this Social decomposition we see is to destroy the family further by normalizing that which all of Western history has found to be destructive.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Mine isn't and wouldn't be whatever state I happen to live in or have lived in when I got married. Paul claimed to be able to pull up and view any marriage license he wanted to right now. How simply cannot. It's a lie. Period.

It's a lie? Extreme much?

So you're one of the 2% (MAYBE) of people's marriage license I cannot pull up....

Chill dude lol.