Rebecca Kleefisch: same sex marriage will lead to humans marrying clocks & tables

Watch/listen as Republican Lt. Governor candidate Rebecca Kleefisch channels her inner bigot.

“This is a slippery slope,” Kleefisch said. “In addition to that at what point are we going to be okay marrying inanimate objects? Can I marry this table or this, you know, clock? Can we marry dogs?

“This is ridiculous,” continued Kleefisch. “And biblically, again, I’m going to go right back to my fundamental Christian beliefs marriage is between one man and one woman.”

I have to admit….I’ve never encountered anyone who advocated for the right of humans to marry animals or inanimate objects on the grounds of equality.

Clearly Rebecca Kleefisch isn’t a big believer in the second sentence of the Declaration of Independence, which states (with my emphasis), “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Apparently all men/women aren’t created equal and aren’t entitled to the pursuit of happiness in Rebecca Kleefisch’s eyes, especially if those men/women happen to want to marry someone of the same sex.


Related Articles

24 thoughts on “Rebecca Kleefisch: same sex marriage will lead to humans marrying clocks & tables

  1. I always dislike that argument. Honestly, every argument against gay marriage is completely illogical. To break it down, they want the same legal rights as any other straight couple.

    The argument of marrying someone or something that cannot consent to marriage is preposterous. They just want legal rights. But then again considering the fit that people did with a Catholic President… (John F. Kennedy) … Can’t say people are logical in their fear or bigotry.

    ( Actually, are you aware that the gay marriage ban in some states actually screwed up a ton of already married couples who were straight? Something how it was written, it nullified a ton of marriages in the process. )

  2. There is a reason scott walker refuses to let her debate….we see it everytime she speaks…

  3. Aside from inantimate objects, you folks have never provided a valid reason why you do not include polygamy or cousin marriage in your goal of equal rights for everybody.

    I wish you would also apply your goal of equality and quotes from the Declaration of Independence about LIFE and the pursuit of happiness to aborted babies who you deny the right to LIFE and pursuing happiness.

    1. Actually, Polygamy I wouldn’t have a problem with by all means. As long as the benefits were not used to be a profit, perhaps by estimating on children or something along those lines and based on jobs/income level I would personally not have any problem with it.

      Also incest is a creepy topic to consider. The problem is in the relationship between siblings, mother and son, father and daughter, mother and daughter, father and son, or any other family relationship. More often than not, someone in the relationship has power over the other. This leads to the question of, can both partners really give consent if it’s a father on daughter, or mother on son, or older brother on younger sister, older sister on younger brother.

      Furthermore, when organisms mate too closely within family lines, they tend to make it more likely that abnormal, recessive genes will be passed on to their offspring. This means that their children are more likely to be born deformed or with other genetic related problems. The longer the inbreeding goes, the more generations that are involved, the worse the problem will get.

      1. Yes, we would have to change government benefits for formalized polyamorous relationships and do our best to get clear consent from all parties. The current groups that practice polygamy tend to oppress women, often exploiting underage girls.

        Close relative marriage is generally not as much of a genetic risk as supposed for offspring, but that can be tested for.

        1. Furthermore, it can’t be a case of “I’m gonna cheat on this this one person and say it’s a polyamorous relationship” because if you choose to do that you will be held accountable for having to raise and give money to both of those lines. It would account a lot of personal responsibility, get clear consent from all parties in general. (Furthermore it wouldn’t be a case of perhaps one father and two wives, but even two families together of two wives and two fathers or something along those lines.)

          Personally, it’s not the genetic portion that bothers me when it comes to incest, but rather the psychological implications because it’s often the older and more powerful figure forces themselves on another regardless of gender.

      2. More often than not, someone in the relationship has power over the other.

        Which was always the most pathetic & dreadful thing about those on the left who supported Clinton’s affair with Lewinsky. It was “no big deal” & “leave people’s private life alone.” For some reason, that she was an intern and he was POTUS and the power discrepancy couldn’t get any wider was ignored because they liked there guy. The left is capable of being hypocritical on these issues just like the right.

        1. You’re derailing the topic.

          I didn’t support him in that respect when it was happening even if I was just a child at that time and nor did my family or friends of the family in general. While many democrats in office defended him with such thing you can bet with how much controversy was flying around a lot of people on the left were were disgusted with what he did.

          However since we’re derailing topics – Feingold was the most persistent and vocal critics of Clinton and easily the greatest Democratic proponent of continuing the GOP investigations throughout the period from 1997-1999.

          1. I’d call it more of a tangent than derailing…but to be honest, if I’m derailing a conversation about polygamy and especially incest not really being so bad, I’m not about to feel guilty about it.

        2. No, Pres. Clinton’s dalliance with Monica Lewinsky was a big deal, no doubt made much worse by partisans who were hell-bent on impeaching him to score political points while they themselves were engaging in similar behavior (Newt Gingrich, anyone?).

          1. Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, not because he received adulterous fellatio from an intern. If Newt lied under oath, by all means, he should have been prosecuted as well.

            Clinton, impeached. Nixon, not impeached. It sticks in your craw, doesn’t it?

      3. T, you are going to bring up “creepy” and “mating” in your arguments? Do you realize that men and women can’t mate with their own gender? That means you are also arguing AGAINST gay marriage.

          1. And women also.

            They clearly shouldn’t get married because they can’t reproduce. Simple as that.

    2. Also, in addition believe it or not cousins can be married in Wisconsin. There is otherwise a ban on first cousins and first cousins – however both meet certain age and/or fertility restrictions. The only way around the ban is for the woman to be over 55 or at least one of the two people to be infertile.

      Truth is sometime stranger than fiction.

    1. Yeah, and not a great one, but apparently that’s all it takes to qualify a person to be a heartbeat away from serving as governor.

      1. A heartbeat away? LOL! It’s not like Gov of WI has a finger on the nuclear button. I think we’d all manage. For an office that shouldn’t even exist, I think even that kitchen table you want to marry would be qualified.

        1. “even that kitchen table you want to marry”

          Writes the guy who only a day or two ago was lecturing others about civility.

          As to the rest of what you wrote, if Governor of Wisconsin is truly as meaningless as you’re asserting, then it doesn’t matter if we elect Tom Barrett or Scott Walker.

          1. I didn’t assert that the position of Governor was meaningless, but I think in the event of a crisis where we lose one in death, the state would be able to function in the interim. There are no national security concerns. I do, however, think the position of Lt. Gov is meaningless.

            As for civility, I don’t get your drift. If anything, my comment was a dig on Kleefisch for her comment. I thought you might even find it humorous, but I guess if I’m not Annie poking fun at a Republican’s physical appearance, you don’t know how to LOL.

            Civility, ha! In the last week on this blog it’s been all about brain-dead Republicans with smirks and bad haircuts who want people to die.

            1. It’s entirely possibly I misunderstood what you wrote when referencing the table….it wouldn’t be the first time, and it probably won’t be the last.

Comments are closed.