Lt. Governor Kleefisch disagrees with marrying dogs or clocks

And it’s getting some kind of play. I saw some very disheartening conservative comments thinking she might have just cost Scott Walker the election. I said last week it was Walker’s to lose. It never dawned on me she might lose it for him.

From Fox 6:

 

Comments

  1. Perhaps I’m just sheltered, but I don’t know of anyone who advocates for folks being able to marry dogs or clocks.

  2. I’m not much for gay marriage either. (Heck tonight I can’t say I’m much for marriage in any form! But that’s a whole different problem for me right now.) However, I do think I could articulate my position without arguing gay marriage would lead to marriage with inanimate objects.

    Oh, good grief. How very odd she seems.

  3. Don’t blame me; I voted for Dave Ross.

    And to the point, if you want to make a slippery slope argument in relationship to gay marriage, it is probably better to talk about polygamy than clocks, especially since in Canada, the former is being seriously looked at by the British Columbia Supreme Court

    http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Affidavits+paint+idyllic+version+polygamy+court+challenge/3680102/story.html

  4. Randy in Richmond says:

    I take it on your ballot there is not a separate vote for Lt. Governor ?

    And I didn’t know Christine McDonnell had a sister.

  5. No, Randy, no separate ballot.

    Yes, Ryan, me too.

    We might as well talk about gays and marriage. I really, and I’m not being hateful when I say this, think maybe we need to call all unions civil unions that are issued by the state and leave marriage as a concept for a church. If you want to be married, find a church who will do the ceremony, and he/she can issue both a marriage certificate from that congregation and a civil union certificate by the state. If a church is willing to support gay marriage, then it’s a religious question and nothing more.

    By the way, at the same time remove any taxing penalty for being married. That’s just one piece of stupidity that never made sense.

    So many businesses when offering benefits already offer partner benefits. That wouldn’t be any different. What gets me is the demand that just because the gay population wants something, they get it. There’s no need to legalize gay. What they want is for society to bless the lifestyle, and over and over again we’ve learned legislating social thinking is a bad idea.

    Maybe I should demand rights for crabby suburban housewives. (I don’t know why, but I sure woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.)

  6. Wanted: Well-crafted timeless beauty to spend an eternity with. Must value punctuality and be able to ‘take a licking and keep on ticking’.

    About me: Stylish with a great sense of humor.

    Respond to: Stuck@7:22.dot-dot

    http://www.freewebs.com/monsterfx/Cogsworth%2001.jpg

  7. He says one of my favorite lines: “If it’s not baroque, don’t fix it!”

    Way off topic, by the way.

  8. I love Cogsworth! Thanks for adding some fun to this discussion, Dan R and Cindy. ๐Ÿ™‚

  9. “Thereโ€™s no need to legalize gay. ”

    If you ever run for public office that line may come back to haunt you. Unless you’re seeking office in Texas. Then you’re likely to get an endorsement from the Texas Police Association. ๐Ÿ˜‰

    http://www.apcj.org/journal/index.php?mode=view&item=0

  10. As a friend says, I couldn’t be elected dog catcher, so I’m pretty sure I’m safe.

  11. BrkfldDad says:

    Pretty evident now why they wouldn’t let her debate. I am just waiting now for the Barrett campaign to blitz the airwaves with the ‘heartbeat away…’ ad.

  12. She’s who the Republican base wanted. Just shows I’m not one of the base, I guess.

  13. BrkfldDad says:

    Ditto I guess, she didn’t get my vote

  14. I always loved this song:

  15. Well, Cindy, I think this should be your new FC theme song.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGWz1sKV6j8

  16. That’s a good one, RL.

  17. Wilson828 says:

    Beyond Rebecca being pretty – there isn’t much reason to vote for her – she’s shallow and frankly the Lt Gov job is a do nothing job. We should save some tax dollars and make it a part time job or eliminate it. Neither dem/rep candidate is saying anything I want to hear or need to hear.

    And like others – I believe that marriage is between a man and woman – period.

    But comon now… Cindy … you know that Scott Walker is about Scott Walker and not good government. Are you seriously staying the party line and sticking to this looloo?

  18. Yep.

  19. Wilson828 says:

    nodding.. okay … well .. you’ve convinced me.. i can see you’re passionate in your response and support of him … a glowing endorsement of sort….

    wow .. just think…. scott walker and mary lazich .. together in madison ….. a wonderful team of self promoting do nothing politicians ….

    (that should have made you cringe .. and you know i’m right)

    more stupid things have happened .. .there’s still a chance the good guys will win …maybe this stupid rebecca thing will get some serious legs… oh wait .. it won’t.. sykes and the other idiot belling … they won’t talk endlessly about it … hmm…

    on a less sarcastic note… going to door later .. gonna see if a tree fell on the house .. hope not…

  20. I’m glad you caught a sense of my passion on the subject.

    Listen, I don’t get my way much in politics. I’ve thought about it – I mean, I could give in and go with the flow and pretend to be happy with our mediocre offering, but it’s just not my style. So I hold my nose and vote a straight ticket.

  21. Cindy, 100% with you regarding civil unions. It would save a lot of $$$ in lawsuits and disputes by just removing the religious aspect from the civil aspect. This country has bigger fish to fry.

  22. So. Is there no ‘October Surprise’? Or was this it? Walker can sit and wait patiently for votes to roll in to a landslide victory on Tuesday?

  23. Cindy, I pretty much agree with your #5, although it will never happen–too many laws t change.

    Most of my evangelical Christian brethren would disagree with my position, oh well.

    I understand what Rebecca wanted to say–many evangelicals believe in one man/one woman and a slippery slope–but she botched it terribly.