Skip to main content

The recent and much welcome court decision striking down Wisconsin's gay marriage ban has thrown Republicans in the state into a quandary about what to do. Some have been reduced to issuing cheap threats. Some have basically thrown in the towel. (Please note, the former is not running for anything, while the latter is staring electoral oblivion in the face in 2016.) And in the case of the state's governor, he's trying desperately to avoid taking any position at all on the matter. (To be fair, the goggle-eyed homunculus {thank you, Charles Pierce} has a lot on his mind these days.)

But now, a new GOP stance on the matter has come to light. But it's not one the GOP probably wants known:

A Wisconsin Republican running in the race for the state's third Congressional district warned that the recent ruling striking down the state's same-sex marriage ban might lead to marriages between siblings.

"We've got, for instance, two sisters, and these two sisters want to get married. They love each other. They are committed to each other. They want to spend the rest of their life together," attorney Karen Mueller, the candidate, said according to The Tomah Journal.

Okay, that's definitely a new one. But unless the sisters in question are members of the Lannister family, I don't think it's going to come up.

More reasoning from this genius:

A ban on same-sex marriage isn't a ban that stops gay people from getting married, Mueller said.

"That's not true. They can get married," Mueller said. "They just can't get married to each other."

Yes, you can't marry the partner you love and want to spend your life with, but you can marry some random straight person and make your life and theirs miserable living a lie! It's win-win!

Needless to say, this candidate isn't going anywhere (the district she's running in is Ron Kind's). But her words are just another example of the ridiculous lengths Republicans are having to go to in order to argue against gay marriage.  It's not on the level of "man on dog," "man on box turtle," or "man on horse," but you can't blame her for trying.

Originally posted to gf120581 on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 10:55 AM PDT.

Also republished by Badger State Progressive.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  mueller probably spanks it to twincest. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    librarisingnsf, blueyedace2

    Dawkins is to atheism as Rand is to personal responsibility. uid 52583 lol

    by terrypinder on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 11:01:07 AM PDT

  •  So what if two adult sisters get married? (nt) (0+ / 0-)

    warning: snark probably above

    by NE2 on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 11:35:16 AM PDT

  •  Here's another one for ya (0+ / 0-)

    Personally I don't really have a problem with the idea of siblings getting married, the proscription was only created to prevent inbreeding, which can't happen.  

    However, what if a dad marries his son, or a mom marries her daughter?  Obviously no reproduction will be occurring, so no squiggy babies, but the legal ramifications are still rather interesting - you could legally transfer all your wealth to one of your kids with no estate or other taxes whatsoever...

    Republican threats amount to destroying the present if we don't allow them to destroy the future too. -MinistryOfTruth, 1/1/2013

    by sleipner on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 11:51:47 AM PDT

  •  By that logic, straight marriage would lead to (6+ / 0-)

    brothers and sisters marrying.

  •  No, it's not "a new one" at all. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The fathers-marrying-sons/brothers-marrying-brothers meme was already being trumpeted by the right ten years ago; Michael Ramirez even published a cartoon depicting it.

    And Mark Lippman punctures that narrative above, just as many others of us did a decade back. Come to think of it, it's been at least that long since I've heard anything new from marriage equality opponents.

  •  Small minded and focused on sex. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueyedace2, GrumpyOldGeek

    That describes just about every GOP anything at this point.
    Sad really. No issues. No leadership. Just a focus on sex and what is acceptable, and what is not according to a small mind and a 4,500 year old collection of propaganda written by greedy men. Wonderful.

    Give blood. Play hockey.

    by flycaster on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 01:10:56 PM PDT

  •  Wisconsin opposite sex siblings (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Calamity Jean

    Apparently opposite sex siblings are getting married all the time right now in WI.  Be a shame to invalidate their incest by letting lesbian sisters get married too.  

    Traditional marriage = One Brother + One Sister.  But only in Wisconsin.  Everywhere else, that's yucky.  

  •  Wisconsin Statutes, Marriage, Domestic Partners (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    765.03  Who shall not marry

    765.03(1) No marriage shall be contracted while either of the parties has a husband or wife living, nor between persons who are nearer of kin than 2nd cousins except that marriage may be contracted between first cousins where the female has attained the age of 55 years or where either party, at the time of application for a marriage license, submits an affidavit signed by a physician stating that either party is permanently sterile. Relationship under this section shall be computed by the rule of the civil law, whether the parties to the marriage are of the half or of the whole blood. A marriage may not be contracted if either party has such want of understanding as renders him or her incapable of assenting to marriage.
    You can't marry your sister or your brother. Period.


    770.05  Criteria for forming a domestic partnership. Two individuals may form a domestic partnership if they satisfy all of the following criteria:

    770.05(4) The 2 individuals are not nearer of kin to each other than 2nd cousins , whether of the whole or half blood or by adoption.

    770.05(5) The individuals are members of the same sex.

    You can't form legal Domestic Partnership with your sister or brother. Period.

    I don't know if paragraph (5) is overturned by the Federal Court decision. The intent was to permit some form of alternative same-sex legal relationship other than marriage, but this is still a clear constitutional violation, imo.

    This now seems to permit a legal alternative to marriage.

    "Never wrestle with a pig: you get dirty and the pig enjoys it"

    by GrumpyOldGeek on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 01:30:49 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site