I Know... Let's Vote on It!

Rice Lake Chronotype Reader
Poll Result

Do agree with the recent ruling by a federal judge that declares Wisconsin's ban on gay marriage unconstitutional?

17% Yes

83% No

0% Don't know
--------------------------

LOL.
They just don't seem to get it;
there's no voting on the Constitutionality of equal protection of the laws.


It really does make me laugh, not so much at the uneducated opinions of the rural majority. But at the educated people working at that paper, who saw fit to print such a poll question.

Up next week:
Do women really deserve the right to vote? How's that working out for ya?
or,
Should black people and white people be allowed to date sexually, mingle and marry?

How about asking people:
Do you agree the Court erred when it declared unconstitutional for white children and black children to receive separate, but equal!, taxpayer-financed educations?

People, the majority of them, should have a say in these important personal matters, don't you think? What nonsense. C'mon grow a little, Mr. Dorrance! (and the rest of the editorial staff...)

Oh, we get it biologically, the "heterosexuals deserve special rights" argument, but with so many shiftless fathers, that "marriage is something special, financial privileges just for breeders" ship has sailed long ago: indeed, children are best raised by their two biological parents in the home, full time, with their full-blood, known brothers and sisters. But the people doing it right, in raising their ONE intact family, don't have their hands out for more, seemingly threatened in their healthy partnerships by letting other loving couples into the franchise.

Here in this county... we've got prominent adulterers/divorcees in positions of authority, their children being raised with part-time fathers and substitute stepdads in the home. They want to legitimize their love with a marriage certificate, not just content with their role as shacked-up lovers. They want a do-over, no poll questions asked.

One woman, two men... that's cool now with divorce socially accepted, no? One man, one woman, legally ... until he decides to trade up for a younger model, (and isn't that the fear of all second wives? you got yer prize hun, now ya gotta really work it to keep 'im.) then, heck... three, four, five wives, even. Legally. Nothing stopping him, yet I don't see any poll questions asking if we all agree that should be legal.

All the little bastards you can bear on the government dollar, no one blinks nowadays it seems. Females get bred like that regularly, now. Loose-seed daddies, I call 'em. Fact of life. We're an undereducated rural county; your body, they seem to think, is destiny. Morals are moot when natural calls. You can't expect a young woman here to heed the call of education and career, when ... destiny calls. Biology is determinant. We're all animals, no?

But... they ask the homosexual taxpayers to contribute for these growing public needs -- from the WIC, to the hospital bills, to paying for the court costs to establish paternity (our corporate counsel doubles as the childsupport collector on behalf of these young, bred women in our county; he's the highest paid member of the staff. Ca-ching, ca-ching: somebody's making money off of all these split-up, broken families, some before they've even started.)


Personally, I'm kinda surprised only 83% of the haters voted. Surprised there was 17% verbally supporting the judge's work. There's an awful lot of protected privilege up here -- we're farmers, dontcha know? Bird and the bees, air and the trees... and an awful lot of subsidies.

(shhh... don't talk about that. Hard-working, earned everything we've got, dontchaknow? It's just... we want to exclude other citizens from competing honestly on an equal playing field. It's our inheritance talking. Stupid judge. Don't she know how special the majority is, and that anyone strong in body can rip that Constitution to shreds?)

LOL, indeed.