TPMDC

Grayson Knocks 'Taliban Dan' Webster For Supporting 'Covenant Marriage'


Republican congressional candidate Daniel Webster

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) isn't taking any chances with his re-election, attacking all of his potential opponents as they fight each other in the GOP primary. But he's saving his harshest line for his likely rival, Daniel Webster -- or, as Grayson calls him, "Taliban Dan." Why? Because in 1990, Webster sponsored and supported legislation in Florida that would have made it much more difficult for people to divorce -- a policy called "covenant marriage."

In a letter to supporters, Grayson described it like this: "Dan Webster's bill reduces the institution of marriage to a roach motel: You can check in, but you can't check out."

Grayson added:

With one exception: adultery. So, let's say that your husband, God forbid, has been abusing you. And you need a divorce. You have only one option. According to Dan Webster's law, you would need to deliberately commit infidelity in order to get a divorce.

Ah, but here's the catch. Under Dan Webster's law, if both parties cheat on each other, then they can't get a divorce. Ever. They're locked in holy matrimony, forever. Like two scorpions in a bottle. So if you cheat on him to get away from him, and it turns out that he's cheated on you, well then . . . .

A call to Webster's staff was not immediately returned.

Liberals do often criticize conservatives for claiming that same marriage will ruin the institution of heterosexual marriage while ignoring the multiple-divorce culture in which we live. Webster's position is, at least, consistently draconian.

Incidentally, Webster has won the endorsement of former GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, who supports covenant marriage so much that he's actually involved in one.

You can read the entire letter below.

Dear Matt,

My opponent Dan Webster -- endorsed in the primary by the Orlando Sentinel and by Jeb Bush -- may not have a clue on what to do about joblessness, homelessness, expensive healthcare, no money for schools or endless war. But he does know what to do about divorce.

Ban it.

In the Florida Legislature, Dan Webster sponsored and supported a bill to institute "covenant marriage." In a covenant marriage, you can't get divorced.

So Dan Webster's bill reduces the institution of marriage to a roach motel: You can check in, but you can't check out.

With one exception: adultery. So, let's say that your husband, God forbid, has been abusing you. And you need a divorce. You have only one option. According to Dan Webster's law, you would need to deliberately commit infidelity in order to get a divorce.

Ah, but here's the catch. Under Dan Webster's law, if both parties cheat on each other, then they can'tget a divorce. Ever. They're locked in holy matrimony, forever. Like two scorpions in a bottle. So if you cheat on him to get away from him, and it turns out that he's cheated on you, well then . . . .

How can someone with such bizarre views even THINK about running for Congress, and making laws that would apply nationwide? Please contribute $25 or more now at CongressmanWithGuts.com toward my Money Bomb, and help me stop Daniel Webster.

There is only one place where in the entire world where both divorce and annulment are forbidden: TheTaliban Government in Northwest Pakistan. And Taliban Dan wants to institute the same rule here. The man with the 19th century name wants to pass 13th century laws, which you and I will have to live by.

Stop Daniel Webster's "covenant marriage" scheme. Please donate $25 or more now at CongressmanWithGuts.com.

Dan Webster is not some fringe candidate. He was Speaker of the Florida House. He was Majority Leader of the Florida Senate. He was in the State Legislature for 28 years. And, as stated above, our daily newspaper and former Governor Jeb Bush have endorsed him in the primary.

We're in a real fight. Will you help?

Can you donate $25 or more now at CongressmanWithGuts.com to make sure that in 2011, I'm in Congress, not Dan Webster?

Truth,

Alan Grayson

Comments (35) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (0)

August 23, 2010 10:35 AM   

As Jews, my wife and myself, have the religious right to a divorce and it is specifically spelled out in our Ketubah (wedding contract), Webster is advocating the squelching my religious in the name of what? Covenant Marriage is carrying god’s name into earthy (vain) pursuits which is the actual definition of blasphemy.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 23, 2010 6:18 PM    in reply to Richard L. Adlof

"Webster is advocating the squelching my religious in the name of what?"

Come on, Richard. You *know* the answer already. He wants to do that because you don't share *his* religion. So you should have no religious freedom at all.

Next thing you know, he'll force you to set a place for the Easter Bunny at your Passover Seder. And I'm not entirely joking about that.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 23, 2010 9:16 PM    in reply to Signalman

Everything is true!
Go in look look: http://www.bizboysell.com
Believe that you may need.


^^#$^#^#$^$#^$#^$#^$^$#^$^$^$^$^$^^$^$#^$#^$#^

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 24, 2010 6:53 AM    in reply to Signalman

Agreed, of course. Like you say, our commenter already knows the answer.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 23, 2010 10:54 AM   

Woody Allen used to have a joke about this in his old stand-up routine, back when New York did not allow for no-fault divorces. Woody explained that he and his wife wanted to get a divorce and the puchline was something to the effect of "The 10 commandmants say that adultry is illegal, but the State of New York says you have to do it. So my wife volunteered..."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 23, 2010 11:07 AM   

Wonderful.
Share a website with you ,
( http://www.clothes6.us )
Believe you will love it.
Accept paypal or credit card and free shipping.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 23, 2010 11:16 AM   

Not to defend "Taliban Dan", but the Grayson mail does seem to omit some relevant facts. I couldn't find many specifics on the Florida law, but I suspect it's like most of the ones in other states where "covenant marriage" is an additional category of marriage rather than a replacement.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 23, 2010 11:29 AM    in reply to Matt Jones

And so what? How many people really know the person they're marrying until its done? Everyone thinks their love is eternal until the day they type "divorce" and the name of their state into Google. How many starry eyed 18 year olds would use this form to seal their eternal love before they found out they hated each other?

And scariest of all, if this was the law, you can be absolutely assured that every single marriage involving a coercive or abusive partner would take this form.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 23, 2010 11:36 AM   

I am of fan of Congressman Grayson but is this attack fair? The article states that Dan Webster sponsored and supported legislation in Florida in 1990 that would establish "covenant marriage". That was 20 years ago. Does he still support this? Has he made any recent statements on this?. Democrats should not be timid in their campaigns but dredging up 20 year old legislation is something Republicans do. We can still wage aggressive campaigns without stooping to the level of Republicans.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 23, 2010 11:52 AM    in reply to greentaxman

He's a devout Chrisitan, of course he still supports this. In his "heart of hearts", meaning his deepest thoughts and dreams, they all want this...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Pat

Facebook

August 23, 2010 12:51 PM    in reply to hologram5

Except when they want out of their own marriage.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 23, 2010 1:18 PM    in reply to Pat

Are you referring to the serial wife recyclers: Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 23, 2010 5:18 PM    in reply to Richard L. Adlof

+1

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 23, 2010 11:57 AM    in reply to greentaxman

Something tells me that he hasn't softened his views in recent years.

As to stooping to the republican's level... well, we see where taking the moral high ground has gotten us. A year and a half of virtually doodly squat out of a democratically controlled house/senate/white house. 18+ months of the minority party calling all the shots because the majority leadership doesn't want to get down in the trenches and fight fire with fire.

When two sides are in a game with no umpire, and one side always plays dirty and the other side only plays fair, which side is always going to win?

I'll take a Grayson or Franken over 50 spineless gits like Reid any day.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 23, 2010 12:14 PM    in reply to Brian Schlosser

I want the Democrats to be assertive like Senator Franken and Congressman Grayson. Why can't we fight "in the trenches" using facts not lies or irrelevancies to attack Republicans? Its' not for a lack of ammunition.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 23, 2010 1:56 PM    in reply to greentaxman

Sure, I'm not saying we should lie. The facts and objective reality ARE on our side. But pointing out an opponents past legislative actions is not irrelevant, espescially if they've never publically repudiated those actions.

And, going further, our political discourse has degraded to a shouting match. Now, I mourn this as much as anyone, but I still think a Democratic government is better than a Republican one, and if we have to coarsen our tactics to maintain control, then so be it. I'd rather get our hems a little dirty and win than play nice and see what 4-8 years of Gingrich/Palin do to the country.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 23, 2010 6:23 PM    in reply to greentaxman

You have to hit back, hard and fast, and with facts. You have to do it aggressively, like they do. I have some experience with this, and some knowledge of it, having been a Republican for the first 20-odd years of my voting life.

They have absolutely *no* idea what to do when you hit them back the way they like to hit others. Some of them will aggress back on you, but those that do almost invariably lose touch with the discussion that was under way when you whacked them. The ones who reply without aggressing usually just repeat conservative shibboleths and orthodoxy until they tire of you knocking their legs out from under them with factual refutations. Then they leave. Few if any of them have significant staying power.

So just pound the living daylights out of their punkin' heads and nail them with facts. Do it fast, do it hard and do it aggressively. They won't have any substantial or organized response.

I'm serious. Try it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 23, 2010 12:24 PM    in reply to Brian Schlosser

And yet, in the potential GOP taking of the house, I anticipate Democratic payback in the Senate for GOP obstructionism with their own obstructionism. Nothing originating in the Senate will get through the House and nothing originating in the House will get through the Senate. I fully expect Washington to be locked in political tit-for-tat obstruction cycles for the rest of my lifetime and beyond.

We're facing political nothingism.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

aq

user-pic

August 23, 2010 12:33 PM    in reply to tinsk

"No, Donny, these men are nihilists. There's nothing to be afraid of."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 24, 2010 9:27 AM    in reply to aq

+1

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 23, 2010 2:04 PM    in reply to tinsk

You think so? I predict that the Democratic Senate will live up to the example it's been setting in recent months and capitulate to anything the Republican house passes. Oh, they might insist on a few minor cosmetic changes, but thats it. Then Obama will sign those laws, because he will be terrified of losing in 2012.

They're gutless when they're in power, wheres the evidence that they will regain any spine once out of it?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 23, 2010 1:52 PM    in reply to greentaxman

He's a Republican Christianist. Of course he still supports this. He'd likely support worse if he thought he could get some short-term gain from it. Think, "stoning."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 23, 2010 8:52 PM    in reply to greentaxman

Greentaxman: yes it is still his position and Webster brags about this position on his campaign website:

"Added covenant marriage license as a marriage license option in Florida, to strengthen marriages and the family unit"

So this is completely fair game. And as others have mentioned, even though it is voluntary there are plenty of young people who think they will be in love forever and sign up for this, only to be trapped by it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 23, 2010 11:39 AM   

1. Fuck the pearl-clutching commenters. Go faint someplace else. 2. God, how I wish we could clone Grayson.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 23, 2010 1:11 PM    in reply to Steve LaBonne

Says the biggest pearl-clutching swooner on TPM.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 23, 2010 11:51 AM   

As I read it, the bill was not passed. But that's mostly irrelevant. It's still the kind of medieaval nonsense people like Webster want to force on us.

Franken/Grayson 2016!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 23, 2010 7:43 PM    in reply to Brian Schlosser

Just Franken right now.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 23, 2010 12:08 PM   

You gotta love Alan Grayson!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 23, 2010 12:24 PM   

Heh. Matt Stoller's influence continues to grow it appears.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 23, 2010 1:03 PM   

... TheTaliban Government in Northwest Pakistan.

Is Grayson in effect recognizing that our glorious (if muddy) ally has lost control over a significant portion of its claimed territory?

And doesn't even the Taliban version of sharia allow divorce (if initiated by the husband, on specific grounds)?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 23, 2010 3:45 PM   

Webster est un danger a notre democratie. Pour nous,le ciel est bleu;pour Webster le rouge est sa version de l'enfer.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

cha

user-pic

August 23, 2010 9:36 PM   

Dear customers, thank you for your support of our company.
Here, there's good news to tell you: The company recently
launched a number of new fashion items! ! Fashionable
and welcome everyone to come buy. If necessary, please
input:

http://www.newgoing.com/

T-shirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $14

New era cap $10

Air jordan(1-24)shoes $30

Handbags(Coach,ed hardy,lv,d&g) $35

Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $35

Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini)$14

Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $18

http://www.newgoing.com
fbs

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 23, 2010 10:04 PM   

╭⌒╮WELCOME
----- http://www.pointingtrade.com ~ ¤ ╭⌒╮ ╭⌒╮
╭⌒╭⌒╮╭⌒╮~╭⌒╮
,)))),'')~~ ,''~)
╱◥█◣ ╱◥█◣
|田|田||田|田|
╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬
Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33
Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35
Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $32
Tshirts (ed hardy,lacoste) $16
Jean(True Religion,VERSACE,coogi) $30
Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $16
New era cap $10

╬╬╬ http://www.pointingtrade.com ╬╬╬
╰══════════════╯

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 24, 2010 11:49 AM   

Marriage is a covenant. The two terms are interchangeable. Marriage is a sacrament as well, which is why the government should dump involvement entirely in marriage altogether. It is a civil matter the Federal government has no business involved in. If it is about government subsidies, welfare and kickbacks, then if people are caring for children (contributing to education of any child) then the government can find a way to "support" that activity.

Marriage is a covenant between a man and woman based on GOD's law and the 10 commandments wherein there is a whole set of laws (not rules) that ensure success in all things.

People who don't believe in GOD do not believe in marriage at all and should use the government (as their GOD or base from which to derive their benefit; which I wouldn't to tell you the truth).. either way we have choices and the government should not govern over matters such as this .. the government is a body of leaders who ensure peace and making way for citizens to pursue of happiness that is derived from the 10 commandments.

God established the 10 commandments for a reason, not for leaders to use to dictate. If we follow the 10 commandments we are promised happiness and prosperity which is why AMERICA is prosperous. America over the past decades have turned away from the 10 commandments and is trying to establish laws and dictates unnecessarily and it is preventing families and individuals from relying upon GOD as an independent 'free moral agent", which is what GOD established us to be.

Boated government is a sign that mankind is straying away from the rule of GOD'S LAW, which is iron clad.. the government is turning into a fly by night operation; a smash and grab for power, a loop hole and the "leaders" will not be held harmless when judgment day comes.. they will be held accountable for misleading children astray from the foundational truths that are undeniable.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 24, 2010 5:12 PM   

Are you joking?
Are you really under the impression that marriage did not exist before the 10 commandments? Where, exactly, in your precious bible does it say between one man and one woman?

How dare you say that if I don't believe in (your, I'm sure) god, then I don't believe in marriage?

America has not "turned away" from the 10 commandments, it was not founded on the 10 commandments to begin with. The founders specifically and repeatedly reinforce a separation of church and state.

You are both incredibly arrogant and incredibly ignorant.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on