It's not unthinkable. Countries like the USA are set up as a Republic with limited democracy, after all. This is why men in the USA did not receive universal suffrage until 1856 and women not until 1920. (And a little math for you ladies, 64 years is not thousands of years!). I copied and posted a speech made by Robert Welch back in 1961 about this subject, if you would like a little background on this: http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2007/04/republic-versus-democracy.html
The advantages to only allowing married people to vote would be enormous!
First and foremost, the nuclear family would become rock solid, which would be highly desireable as everybody knows the family is the basic fundamental unit of society. Even Marxofembots and their Homomarxist allies who attack marriage know this. This is, of course, why they ferverently attack marriage; to cause enough societal destruction to make the population malleable and enable them to socially re-engineer society according to their sick ideas. (And no matter what you think about democracy - nobody voted for this!)
"Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society." -- Paula Ettelbrick, “Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation?”, in William Rubenstein, ed., Lesbians, Gay Men and the Law (New York: The New Press, 1993)
"The destruction of the biological family, never envisioned by Freud, will allow the emergence of new women and men, different from any people who have previously existed." -- Alison Jaggar, Political Philosophies of Women's Liberation: Feminism and Philosophy, (Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co. 1977)
Marriage would again become something desireable, rather than scorned. After all, if only married couples could vote, the government would have to cater to them in order to get elected - and they would also start to ignore the whack-jobbies in Academia who continually spew forth their treasonous subversive plot to alter society without the people knowing it.
Married couples will, of course, always vote for their own best interests. This is human nature, but this is a good way to harness human selfishness, because what married couples want is for their families to be protected, safe and secure. Even the Supreme Court of the USA has acknowledged this, twice:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0442_0584_ZS.html
(Phyllis Schlafly wrote http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2006/june06/06-06-21.html): Americans have always assumed that parents share decision-making authority because only parents can determine what is in the best interest of their own children. Chief Justice Warren Burger, writing in 1979 for the majority in Parham v. J.R. (Linked above), stated that ever since Blackstone (who wrote in 1765), the law "has recognized that natural bonds of affection lead parents to act in the best interests of their children."
and
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-138.ZS.html
(Phyllis Schlafly wrote http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2006/june06/06-06-21.html): As recently as 2000, the Supreme Court in Troxel v. Granville (linked above) reaffirmed this principle and upheld the "presumption that fit parents act in the best interests of their children." The Troxel case rejected the argument that a judge could supersede a fit parent's judgment about his or her child's "best interest.
So, think about it. What is in best interests of the child?
Ultimately, the best interests of the child will lead to married people voting for issues that encourage society to be safe, strong and economically viable. They will also vote for strong marriage laws, which is good as this is the cornerstone of civilization, but they will not likely vote for destructive laws discriminating against divorced people because they will know, deep down, that but for the grace of God, they may one day be divorced themselves and no longer have a say.
Married people will not vote against single people, because they will recognize that their own children will likely be single adults for a spell before they find a suitable mate - and in the meantime, parents will want their single, adult children to succeed. So they will vote for governments which encourage this.
Married people will not vote against widows/widowers, because they will know that one day, they will likely end up in that situation themselves, and therefore will want to ensure that society treats such people fairly and with dignity.
Giving the vote only to married couples would also completely even out the sexes at the ballot box. It would be exactly 50/50 between the sexes, so both would receive equal representation.
Giving the vote only to married people would also restore much needed stature to the institution of marriage, as married people would become the "ruling class." It would be an extra incentive to be married.
Nobody would be discriminated against, because everyone has the opportunity to choose to marry and become part of the ruling class. You could even easily allow for politicians to run for office while being single, but only married people could vote for them, so they would still cater the family/the fundamental unit of a sound society. And this is good, because I will likely be single when I run for the First President of the Republic of Western Canada. http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2007/03/solution-to-save-western-civilization.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Canada_PartyAnd would Marxofeminists and Homomarxists complain that they are discriminated against? Most likely. But how much should we care when they openly admit that they are intent on altering society and even human beings very core nature, by subversively causing division and chaos?
"A middle ground might be to fight for same sex marriage and its benefits, and then, once granted, redefine the instution completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution." -- Michelangelo Signorile, "Bridal Wave," OUT Magazine, December/January 1994, p.161
"[Marriage] enforces women's dependence on men, it enforces heterosexuality and it imposes the prevailing masculine and feminine character structures on the next generation." -- Alison Jaggar, Feminist Politics and Human Nature
"[E]nlarging the concept to embrace same-sex couples would necessarily transform it into something new....Extending the right to marry to gay people -- that is, abolishing the traditional gender requirements of marriage -- can be one of the means, perhaps the principal one, through which the institution divests itself of the sexist trappings of the past." -- Tom Stoddard, quoted in Roberta Achtenberg, et al, "Approaching 2000: Meeting the Challenges to San Francisco's Families," The Final Report of the Mayor's Task Force on Family Policy, City and County of San Francisco, June 13, 1990, p.1.
"The cultural institutions which embody and enforce those interlocked aberrations - for instance, law, art, religion, nation-states, the family, tribe, or commune based on father-right - these institutions are real and they must be destroyed." -- Andrea Dworkin, Our Blood: Prophecies And Discourses On Sexual Politics - The Root Cause, (Harper & Row, 1976)
They never asked the rest of us to vote on whether we wanted to be fundamentally changed according to their ideals either. They just assume they are better than the rest of us. Nope, these people don't respect democracy or rights anyway, except to manipulate them subversively in order to pass their agenda by way of Critical Theory and Hegelian-Marxist Dialectical Arguments. (Or was I sleeping when the vote was held on whether we wanted to be transformed in marriageless, family-less, "new humans?") http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2007/02/what-is-marxism-and-how-does-it-work.html
***************************************************************
Some quotes illustrating the Marxofeminist's "desired Utopia" which we did not vote for:
"Differences [between men and women], including the products of social inequality, MAKE UNEQUAL TREATMENT NOT UNEQUAL AT ALL." -- Catharine MacKinnon, "Reflections on Sex Equality Under Law," Yale Law Journal, 1991
"The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race." -- Sally Miller Gearhart, in The Future - If There Is One - Is Female
"...[W]omen and men are distinct species or races ... men are biologically inferior to women; male violence is a biological inevitability; to eliminate it, one must eliminate the species/race itself... in eliminating the biologically inferior species/race Man, the new Ubermensch Womon (prophetically foreshadowed by the lesbian separatist herself) will have the earthly dominion that is her true biological destiny. We are left to infer that the society of her creation will be good because she is good, biologically good. In the interim, incipient Super Womon will not do anything to 'encourage' women to 'collaborate' with men--no abortion clinics or battered woman sanctuaries will come from her. After all, she has to conserve her 'energy' which must not be dissipated keeping 'weaker' women alive through reform measures. The audience applauded the passages on female superiority/male inferiority enthusiastically. This doctrine seemed to be music to their ears." -- from a panel on "Lesbianism as a Personal Politic" that met in New York City, Lesbian Pride Week 1977; Andrea Dworkin, Letters from a War Zone, - Take Back The Day - Biological Superiority: The World's Most Dangerous and Deadly Idea (1977), (Dutton Publishing, 1989) p.146
"Not merely about equal rights for women ... Feminism aspires to be much more than this. It bids to be a totalizing scheme resting on a grand theory, one that is as all-inclusive as Marxism, as assured of its ability to unmask hidden meanings as Freudian psychology, and as fervent in its condemnation of apostates as evangelical fundamentalism. Feminist theory provides a doctrine of original sin: The world’s evil’s originate in male supremacy." -- Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge, Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies, p.183 (***Note: Patai & Koertge write from a critical perspective of where feminism has been going and use the above in the context of an example to illustrate their case. See Daphne Patai's website here: http://www.daphnepatai.com/ And read about her work here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daphne_Patai )
*****************************************************************
