Skip to main content

Kansas State Senate candidate declares that Democrats aren't real Catholics

Republican Kansas State Senate candidate Steve Fitzgerald recently told the Polish American Club that the Democratic Party has become un-Christian. When asked about this comment by The Huffington Post, Fitzgerald responded with the following:

"My main point is that the Democratic platform and policies nationally are in attempt to redefine marriage in effect to say what Christ has said about marriage is a lie. Christ said marriage is between one man and one woman and the Democratic platform said that it's not true. So therefore, my point was that one cannot support the Democratic platform and be a follower of Christ. ...The contention that I said that one cannot be Catholic or Christian and a Democrat is not an unreasonable summation of what I actually said. My actual message was fix the party or leave."

I'm thinking that Mr. Fitzgerald hasn't read The Bible - that or has read a different version of it. I'm guessing in this edited version, the following verse appears in the book of Santorum 66:6-8 - "If thou is a man, thou shalt not wear a ring symbolizing love for another man, be wed to him and spend every Saturday touching naughty parts instead of watching football. If thou is a woman, the same shall hold true - she shall not wed another woman and enjoy touching each other's lady parts, for this is not ladylike and not what Christ wanted. Amen."

Let me run down a list of marriage-types in The Bible for Mr. Fitzgerald:

- Levirate Marriage: "Levir" in Latin means "brother-in-law." If a woman was widowed and without children, she was then required to marry her brother-in-law. Yes, due to this, brother-in-laws became 10.26 times more likely to kill their brother if his wife was "prettier than the Virgin Mary" and 52.999 times more likely to commit suicide if their brother's wife "looked and smelled like one of the Disciples." That number increased to 100.026 times if their brother was dealing with serious health problems.

- Polygamous Marriage: Not only could a man have to himself multiple wives, but some lovely concubines on the side. Perhaps Mr. Fitzgerald meant to say, "In The Bible, Christ said that marriage is between one man, one woman...and another woman, another woman and a mistress or two."

- Rape Marriage: Yes, if a female virgin who isn't engaged was raped, she was then to marry her rapist. Of course, in light of Missouri Republican Senatorial candidate Todd Akin's revelation about women's magical vaginas, perhaps in Biblical times, women could make a gesture which resulted in the ultimate closing of their vaginas to ward off a potential rape. 

- Slave Marriage: Yes, just as Republican Arkansas legislator Jon Hubbard wrote in his book "Letters to the Editor: Confessions of a Frustrated Conservative" - that slavery was a blessing for African-Americans, it was definitely a blessing for women as well! If that's not love, I don't know what is! 

I'm thinking that Mr. Fitzgerald should alter his statement some - from, "Christ said marriage is between one man and one woman and the Democratic platform said that it's not true" to one of the following:

- "Christ said marriage is between one woman and her brother-in-law and the Democratic platform said that it's not true."

- "Christ said marriage is between one man and many women and the Democratic platform said that it's not true."

- "Christ said marriage is between one man and the woman he raped and the Democratic platform said that it's not true."

- "Christ said marriage is between one man and his woman slave and the Democratic platform said that it's not true."

I'll add one for good measure - Christ said absolutely nothing about gay marriage, so Steve Fitzgerald has no idea what the hell he's talking about. Amen.





Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"