Remember when even a divorce could hurt a politician’s chances of being elected?
It wasn’t even all that long ago, either.
Now we have this brave new world:
A local Georgia lawmaker has come out as nonmonogamous and revealed plans to start a family with her two female partners, declaring, “I’m in love with two wonderful people.”
Atlanta City Council member Liliana Bakhtiari, who became the first gay Muslim elected official in the state when she was voted in last year, disclosed her relationship status in an interview with NBC News on Wednesday.
In the intersectional sweepstakes, I think Bakhtiari just may have won one of the grand prizes.
TRI-fecta…
She really hit this one outta the ballpark.
Good luck on being a “gay Muslim” anywhere but the US. Certainly not in any country with significant numbers of Muslims.
Shiiii-ite. She checks all the boxes.
Whatever happened to just being roommates?
But at least the Civil War is finally over, so at least we have that.
America is no longer a serious country.
Polyamorous lesbian Muslim. Okaaay…
Where are the Salman Rushdie stalkers?
Talk about asleep on the job
Religion of….
Oh, never mind….
(But will it play in Dearborn?… Not that it has to, mind you…. Might knock Stacey Abrams off the front page for a bit, but she’ll come up with something…. She always does…)
Stacey Abrams (continued):
“Stacey Abrams built national wave arguing Georgia elections racist. A judge just crashed her party;
“Obama-appointed judge rules Georgia’s election integrity practices requiring voter ID and citizenship checks are legal and constitutional.”—
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/stacey-abrams-built-national-wave-arguing-georgia-elections-racist-judge
Georgia is looking more and more like Wonderland…
(Even Raffensperger now claims he is in favor of “safe, secure and accessible” elections: “This is a win for all Georgia election officials who dedicate their lives to safe, secure and accessible elections…” One might well wonder where he was hiding in 2020…)
Textually speaking, the Quran and Islam isn’t nearly as harsh regarding lesbianism is it is with male homosexuality. And regarding male-male, it’s much harsher on the one being penetrated (death penalty) than on the penetrator (100 lashes). Punishment also requires two witnesses.
And regarding male-female fornication, Islam focuses on the act of penetration. The lack of concern with lesbianism may be reflective of this focus on penetration.
Punishment for women who commit lesbian acts is being confined to their home. This also requires FOUR witnesses, so unless they’re running an OnlyFans, good luck with that.
Divorce as an obstacle to political success in the United States goes at least as far back as FDR, who started an affair with Lucy Mercer, his wife’s social secretary, during WWI, when Eleanor took the Roosevelt children out of Washington’s tropical heat during the summer of 1916. Although Eleanor at least thought of divorce when she learned of the affair, it was FDR’s mother Sara who forbade the couple to divorce on the grounds that it would kill her son’s political future. FDR lied to Lucy when he told her that Eleanor would not grant him a divorce.
The divorce scandal I remember from my childhood was Nelson Rockefeller’s marriage to Margaretta “Happy” Murphy in May 1963, one month after Happy divorced her first husband and a year after Rockefeller divorced his first wife. Although Rockefeller eventually served as Gerald Ford’s vice president, it’s generally thought that his divorce and second marriage doomed his chances for the presidency. Ironically, the second Mrs. Rockefeller had to put up with speculation that her husband, who died of a heart attack in 1979 in the apartment of a 25-year-old aide named Megan Marshack, had died during “intimate contact” with Marshack.
IIRC, it wasn’t until Ronald Reagan’s campaigns for the presidency that divorce was no longer a major issue for American politicians’ careers.
I think it’s a quad Barry.
1. Female
2. Homosexual
3. Muslim
4. Person of color
Maybe:
5. Polygamist
Somehow though, I don’t think Islam is down with homosexuality.
Supposedly, James G. Blaine’s son’s divorce did as much to scuttle Blaine’s last attempt at the presidency as “Rum Romanism, and Rebellion” did to scuttle his best attempt. Adlai Stevenson was divorced. His supporters said that since it was Mrs. Stevenson who sought the divorce, she was the one who couldn’t be president. He lost anyway. Reagan was also divorced. Jane Wyman wanted the divorce. It wasn’t an issue. And of course, Trump. Divorce isn’t the issue it once was. Thruples, though, may still have some problems.
I’m from Massachusetts. I like to point out that the old saying about a dead girl or live boy doesn’t apply here and hasn’t for decades. (Seriously.) So things like this do not surprise me.
To your first point…. she ain’t won anything yet.
@ Kate > “Good luck on being a “gay Muslim” anywhere but the US. Certainly not in any country with significant numbers of Muslims.”
She would be fine in Israel, a situation that the Left will assiduously avoid noticing, as the sexual bigotry of Muslims, anathema in any other context, is far out-weighed by their hatred of the Jews.
Kinda like supporting Bill Clinton in his otherwise unsupportable #MeToo violations.
@ PA Cat > “Where are the Salman Rushdie stalkers? Talk about asleep on the job”
The calculation on whether or not to issue a fatwa against her will be whether that would be more, or less, useful to the Islamic Supremacists.
@ Dave L > “Textually speaking, the Quran and Islam isn’t nearly as harsh regarding lesbianism is it is with male homosexuality.”
I don’t pretend to be an expert on the subject, but I would think that could be a result of the Muslims’ general dismissal of women as subordinate and unimportant, as shown so clearly in Iran these days. If a man isn’t involved, they really don’t care what the women do.
Thanks Doug, for the correction.
And thanks Dave L. for providing precise and detailed answers to all those questions one may have been afraid to ask…
IIRC, it wasn’t until Ronald Reagan’s campaigns for the presidency that divorce was no longer a major issue for American politicians’ careers.
It’s doubtful that divorce was much of an issue for Stevenson. Stevenson was running against the former Supreme Allied Commander at a time when the incumbent (Democratic) President had prosecuted the Korean War in a manner rather unsatisfying for much of the public. Also, after 20 years of Democratic dominance of federal politics, there was bound to be some voter fatigue. Stevenson also lacked the common touch.
As for Rockefeller, the issue was that he’d been cheating on his wife and was poaching another man’s wife, a woman with minor children. That was a stew of scandal that was not present in Stevenson’s case or in Reagan’s. Rockefeller faced other head winds – mainly that the position of liberal Republicans and temporizing Republicans was in the midst of a long term decline in federal politics. Henry Cabot Lodge and William Scranton didn’t have any of Rockefeller’s liabilities. Barry Goldwater’s supporters made short work of all three at the Republican national convention in 1964. In 1968, Rockefeller lost to Richard Nixon. Richard Nixon engendered a puzzling admiration among Republican voters and was handed the presidential nomination on a platter on two occasions. In re the third occasion, he had no primary challengers in 1968; Rockefeller’s challenge at the convention was the most vigorous opposition Richard Nixon ever faced in an intra-party contest.
Reagan’s divorce wasn’t an issue for anyone in 1980. Twits like Garry Trudeau used it for stupid japes, ignoring the fact that Jane Wyman initiated the divorce and that Jane Wyman had contracted over the course of a period of 32 years five civil marriages with four different men. Her marriage to Reagan was the only one which lasted longer than four years and the only one which produced any children.
All three of them are crazy and deserve each other.
I remember when American politicians, R and D, worked hard to present themselves as serious, sensible, reasonably articulate people.
But geez louise, now we have a man in the White House, who is clearly in cognitive decline and on occasion can’t find his way out of a room.
Then there’s this Fetterman character running for the US Senate in Pennsylvania who looks and dresses like a tattooed reboot of Lex Luthor, Superman’s arch-nemesis in DC Comics.
Fetterman has had a stroke, which seems to have left him with a large mysterious lump on his neck (usually concealed by his hoodie) and damaged his brain. When asked how he was doing in an interview, he responded bizarrely:
__________________________
“I’m doing fantastic. It’s not about kicking balls in the authority or anything,” Fetterman responded to MSNBC host Chris Hayes.
https://nypost.com/2022/10/01/john-fetterman-mocked-for-answer-when-asked-how-hes-feeling/
__________________________
Yet Fetterman has been leading in the polls over his Republican opponent. The race has tightened, but this Fetterman could shortly become a new member of the US Senate.
How does this happen?
“I remember when American politicians, R and D, worked hard to present themselves as serious, sensible, reasonably articulate people.”
I remember when that could be said of adults in general. Now, since the 60s counterculture, “defining deviancy down”, the gay mafia, and Wokism, it seems like anything goes.
}}} gay Muslim elected official in the state
I think it’s just a matter of time before she gets Theo’d.
Remember, you heard it here, first. :-/
}}} The lack of concern with lesbianism may be reflective of this focus on penetration.
Are you suggesting Islam has never heard of the “strap on”? 😛