Quantcast

«

»

Dec 21 2011

Amy Koch’s marriage is subject to a poll

You’ve probably never heard of her, but she was the leader of the Minnesota Senate Republicans, and she was one of the leaders of the anti-gay marriage legislation we have to vote against. She has since resigned under a cloud — she has apparently indulged in an adulterous relationship (the article, unfortunately, speculates that it was recently fired staffer Michael Brodkorb. I’ve met Brodkorb, and consider that libelous; I think slime molds would find it repugnant to mate with him.)

So now we come to this amusing poll, which questions the legitimacy of Koch’s marriage. It taints all of our marriages when a man and a woman violate their holy vows, don’t you know.

Should Amy Koch be allowed to be married?

Yes, every American deserves the right to marry. 51.94%
No, "inappropriate relationships" desecrate the sacred institution. 48.06%

I tried to vote as I thought the highly principled Amy Koch would.

43 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return!

    I tried to vote as I thought the highly principled Amy Koch would.

    So which one of her highly principled ways is that?

    The way she speaks publicly or the rather opposite principled way she demonstrates through her actions?

  2. 2
    markr1957

    Do as she says, not as she does is the conservative creed.

  3. 3
    Eurasian magpie

    Should Amy Koch be allowed to be married?

    Anyone voting ‘no’ for that question would make a fine Christian indeed.

  4. 4
    carlie

    “allowed to be married”? What, we have to vote on every single union individually now?

  5. 5
    jagmarz

    See, because MN has no constitutional amendment prohibiting domestic partnerships, Ms Koch’s marriage wasn’t worth respecting. If that darn amendment had just passed, THEN she would have been able to respect her own marriage and this affair wouldn’t have happened.

    And the homosexual lobby has the temerity to insist that gay marriage won’t affect other marriages, when evidence like this just PROVES they’re wrong.

  6. 6
    chigau (違う)

    I voted.
    hahahahahaah*cough*

  7. 7
    Rey Fox

    Well, you know what they say. All politics is personal.

  8. 8
    Rey Fox

    And thus, everything personal is politics.

  9. 9
    feralboy12

    I can’t vote on this without more information; some sort of voter’s pamphlet would be in order, I think.
    For instance, if the “yes” votes prevail, what happens then? Does she simply keep her existing husband, or do we have a special runoff election to decide who she should be married to? Are there term limits? Is she allowed to accept wedding gifts?
    I want to be an informed voter.
    Killed By Fish

  10. 10
    'Tis Himself

    I found this part of the article most interesting:

    Democratic Senator Ellen Anderson thought policing the private sex lives of citizens was perhaps not in the state’s best interest and made an effort to repeal the [adultery] law in 2010.

    But the usual staunch defenders of marriage objected. Tom Pritchard and his organization, the Minnesota Family Council (MFC), have long been out front and center trying to protect marriage from the gays. (Pritchard also famously suggested that kids bullied to death were asking for it.)

    In 2010 USA Today reported Pritchard was not only opposing repeal of the adultery law but calling for it to be strengthened: “Tom Prichard, MFC’s president, said these laws are essential because ‘they send a message. … When you are dealing with a marriage, it’s not just a private activity or a private institution. It’s a very public institution. It has enormous consequences for the rest of society.’”

    Considering how many Republicans get caught in somebody else’s bedroom, I’d think Prichard would let sleeping dogs lie. Apparently he’s not that smart.

  11. 11
    NotAProphet

    Not quite sure how exactly it is we’re ‘supposed’ to be voting, and from the results so far I guess nobody else is either, since these polls normally fly in one direction shortly after getting posted here.

    I think to oppose anyone’s marriage, even a hypocritical bigot who’s been caught out, plays perfectly into the hands of those who would try to convince us that some people are unworthy of the union. The fact that we hate those who espouse such ideas just as much as they hate the targets of their ire does not preclude us from being better people.

    I hope anyone who is in touch with their humanity would vote yes, that everybody who loves deserves the ability to cement their relationship in a way that confers all the benefits of a ‘sanctioned’ union, and for FSM’s sake cut out the ‘every AMERICAN’ crap; humans live on other continents too, and to hold the rights of any nationality more dear than others is also playing right into the hands of the fundies.

  12. 12
    DLC

    She has violated the sacred law set down in the bible.
    The penalty for breaking Yahweh’s law is usually death by stoning, isn’t it ? Not that I’m advocating violence, I’m just sayin.

  13. 13
    Pierce R. Butler

    Speaking of polls, who better than a motley crew of atheists to help the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission sort out the Top 10 Anti-Christian Acts of 2011?

    Yes, alongside the 20 heartbreaking stories offered (such as Old Navy donating to the “It Gets Better” campaign – so awful…), you get a chance to fill in a “Other (please specify)” box at no extra charge!

  14. 14
    frankb

    When I voted I didn’t know what was expected of a Pharyngulista in this poll, but I couldn’t stoop to the level of these so-called family focus organizations. So I voted yes.

    Why aren’t Republicans suffering broken necks from the whiplash of demanding smaller government and demanding that same government get into everyone’s bedrooms.

  15. 15
    shouldbeworking

    I thought that voting for coroners and sheriffs was a strange aspect of American democracy, but voting to determine if someone should be allowed to marry a person of the oppose gender is going too far. No wonder same sex marriages aren’t legal yet south of the border.

  16. 16
    Shplane, Spess Alium

    @PJ

    Or they, you know, recognize that internet polls are pointless exercises in sociological masturbation. When did people forget that this is the point of the poll crashing?

  17. 17
    ebotebo

    Or like the clown legislator in Georgia who believes that the Federal and/or State Govt. needs to be doing vag exams after every miscarriage!!

    I can not believe that anyone would go for any of this BS from the GOP or anyone else! Or am I just “too troubled (liberal) in mind?”

  18. 18
    victimainvictus

    I think a lot of people are missing the point. No one sane is suggesting that Koch’s marriage should actually be annulled – it’s tongue-in-cheek poetic justice. The woman who would put other people’s right to marry up for popular vote has now her marriage being voted on.

  19. 19
    Alverant

    #13
    I gave them a bit of help. I reminded them that christians aren’t entitled to special treatment and others have the same rights as they do. It’s really sad over there.

  20. 20
    Alverant

    #13
    I took another look and there were no links to their examples so we don’t know if their claims are true or not. But then christians NEVER lie about anything.

  21. 21
    canadiansteve

    @#13 sweet, you can add your own at the bottom!
    I gave them a couple for fun.

  22. 22
    raven

    an adulterous relationship (the article, unfortunately, speculates that it was recently fired staffer Michael Brodkorb. I’ve met Brodkorb, and consider that libelous; I think slime molds would find it repugnant to mate with him.)

    Oh gee. After all this time, you don’t understand fundies.

    To a toad, another toad can look quite ravishing. You have to take that on faith though because it really isn’t understandable any other way.

  23. 23
    Ichthyic

    I can not believe that anyone would go for any of this BS from the GOP or anyone else! Or am I just “too troubled (liberal) in mind?”

    yes, you are.

    expect to have your patriotism challenged by the average American, and to have a great many of them suggest that if you don’t like it, leave.

    and when they do, and they will, here’s a fun thing to throw at them; tell them if they want you out of “their” country so bad, they can pay for you to relocate somewhere else, AND pay your wages there until you get a work permit, AND pay your US taxes for you while you still remain a US citizen.

    shuts them up every time.

  24. 24
    yellowsubmarine

    #13
    I could only read a few lines into it before my eyes rolled out of my head. I’m not sure I buy the first instance of persecution they listed, but the second made me spit pepsi all over my monitor screen. For those that have already reached their nonsense quota for the month, they were lamenting that two women were booted from a master’s course in counseling when they refused to acknowledge the normalcy of homosexuality. FSM forbid that they should buy into this scientifically supported crap and instead rape the minds of the homosexual individuals that seek them out for counseling with their repugnant bigoted MENTALLY DAMAGING ignorance. That kind of vile idiocy sets my teeth on edge.

  25. 25
    raven

    The penalty for breaking Yahweh’s law is usually death by stoning, isn’t it ? Not that I’m advocating violence, I’m just sayin.

    Yes. Under biblical law, Amy Koch is supposed to be stoned to death for adultery.

    But don’t worry. They are all hypocrites, one of the 3 main fundie sacraments.

    If they stoned every fundie xian for violating Xian Sharia, there wouldn’t be any. Gingrich and Cain wouldn’t be alive to run for president.

    PS The point of the poll is to judge Amy Koch by her own (perverted) standards and see how she likes it. It’s a meaningless internet poll useful for laughs and that is about it.

  26. 26
    Azkyroth Drinked the Grammar Too :)

    Geez, sleeping with a staffer was bad enough, but now she’s on the internet looking for po…

    …oh.

    (Why is it only with a female politician’s affair that they’re even suggesting this should reflect on her marriage? Fuckheads.)

  27. 27
    Ichthyic

    Why is it only with a female politician’s affair that they’re even suggesting this should reflect on her marriage?

    because the double standard in the US is still alive and strong?

    because progress on recognizing and eliminating historical male privilege is going to be more than painfully slow, if it ever actually happens at all?

    because you of course already know all this and are just being rhetorical?

    ;P

  28. 28
    elronxenu

    Re #13 Pierce R. Butler and the “top 10 anti-christian acts” survey,

    Why does this survey look a lot like a laundry list of christian bigotry? Sinful homosexuality, abortion clinic picketing, discriminating against lesbians, “traditional marriage” (that key phrase), and not only that, they complain about Obama wanting to “eliminate prejudice”. This is fucked up behaviour, and they shouldn’t be surprised when somebody calls them on it.

  29. 29
    futurechemist

    Well seeing as the marriage poll is coming from the Huffington Post, it’s not really meant to be taken seriously. Sort of along the same lines as the Washington state ballot initiative that would have annulled marriages if the couple failed to have children within a set time. But if it gets people talking about the merits of voting on other people’s civil rights, that’s a good thing.

    I’m also concerned that according to the linked statute, adultery is only a crime in Minnesota when a married woman sleeps with another man, but not when a married man sleeps with another woman.

  30. 30
    Crissa

    Ichthyic:

    Because she ran on a family-values heavy ticked and tried to put civil rights up for a vote?

  31. 31
    Nick Gotts

    Why aren’t Republicans suffering broken necks from the whiplash of demanding smaller government and demanding that same government get into everyone’s bedrooms. – frankb

    Duh. The government has to be small so it can sneak through keyholes and hide behind bottles of lube.

  32. 32
    No One

    Mr. Caine meet Mary koch.

  33. 33
    F [i'm not here, i'm gone]

    I love how the adultery law is worded.

    They actually fine or imprison people for this?

  34. 34
    Tualha

    I can’t vote for either of the options on the table. The poll needs a “You reap what you sow” option.

  35. 35
    Pierce R. Butler

    As predicted above by our esteemed host, pharyngulation has had a trivial net effect:

    Yes: 50.09%
    No: 49.91%

  36. 36
    Chris Booth

    Tualha @ # 34:

    Well said.

    The poll should have stopped with “yes” and “no”.

    Certainly, a person who legislates for a cause should be subject to its maximum penalties when they violate the laws they “support”; and in that violation, they should be subject to the cost they hoped to impose on others–and to the maximum; we know she’d self-righteously seek the worst for others. She should be prosecuted for adultery and given the and and not the or option for the maximum. Then those adultery laws need to be stricken.

    Raven @ # 25:

    They are all hypocrites, one of the 3 main fundie sacraments.

    What are the other two? Although I suspect that hypocrisy is tripartite and indeed the other two as well….

  37. 37
    raven

    They are all hypocrites, one of the 3 main fundie sacraments.

    What are the other two?

    Hate and lies are the first and second fundie xian sacraments.

    Some people claim there are 5 and add greed and ignorance. While these are fundie sacraments, they aren’t the main ones.

  38. 38
    Chris Booth

    raven @ # 37:

    :-)

    Thank you. (One might see the first two as variants on the third, but I think you are correct; hypocrisy follows the knee-jerk.)

  39. 39
    Alverant

    As for the poll in the initial post, I had to vote yes. I find her behavior outlandish and immoral (and cheating on your spouse is immoral). But if two adults want to get married of their own free will, they should be able to. The fact one of them is a jerk should not disqualify them from marriage.

    @canadiansteve #21
    Oh I gave them an ear-full too. Except it’s a moderated forum which means they can refuse to post what we wrote. Given their over-sensitivities I won’t be surprised if they weren’t.

  40. 40
    Dhorvath, OM

    Alverant,
    Without knowing the specific dynamics of Koch’s marriage, I would not be so quick to pronounce her actions as immoral, at least as regards her marriage. Whether or not she has caused harm to that partnership is really only a decision that her partner can make.

  41. 41
    Sili

    I thought you weren’t gonna link to HuffPo anymore.

    carlie says:

    “allowed to be married”? What, we have to vote on every single union individually now?

    Yes. It makes perfect sense. This way there’s nothing exceptional about the bans on gay marriage, and thus those laws can pass the Lemon test.

    Sauce for the gander.

  42. 42
    Vicki, duly vaccinated tool of the feminist conspiracy

    Dhorvath:

    As far as the details of Koch’s marriage, you’re right, of course. But the laws that she is defending make me liable to imprisonment, and somehow I don’t think she and her allies would care that nothing my lover and I did has in any way damaged my marriage.

  43. 43
    Dhorvath, OM

    Vicki, I am all for calling Koch on the crap she puts forwards. I could even be swayed to using immoral to describe the hypocrisy of working to enshrine a limited and hurtful definition of marriage while herself practicing outside of that ideal. At the least, it fills me with contempt for Koch, and glee for the impediment this scandal causes her ilk.

    I took umbrage at an ancillary aspect of this story and should likely have saved it for another time or place. My apologies for loosing focus.

Comments have been disabled.