During the debate on the Gay Marriage (Shudder!) Amendment, Rep. Lincoln Davis (D.-Tenn.) spoke to the whole sanctity of marriage thang -- with a perfectly straight face. His concern with the bill is that it doesn't go far enough.

Marriage is for life, and this amendment needs to include that basic tenant. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think we should expand the scope of the amendment to outlaw divorce in this country. Going further Mr. Speaker, I believe in fidelity. Adultery is an evil that threatens the marriage and the heart of every marriage, which is commitment. How can we as a country allow adulterers to go unpunished and continue to make a mockery of marriage? Again by doing so, what lessons are we teaching our children about marriage? I certainly think that it shows we are not serious about protecting the institution and this is why I think the amendment should outlaw adultery and make it a felony.

Additionally, Mr. Speaker, we must address spousal abuse and child abuse. Think of how many marriages end in a divorce or permanent separation because one spouse is abusive. And, Mr. Speaker, I personally think child abuse may be the most despicable act one can commit. This is why if we are truly serious about protecting marriage to the point we will amend the constitution, we should extend the punishment of abuse to prevent those who do such a hideous act from ever running for an elected position anywhere.

We should also prevent those who commit adultery, or get a divorce, from running for office. Mr. Speaker, this House must lead by example. If we want those watching on CSPAN to actually believe we are serious about protecting marriage, then we should go after the other major threats to the institution. Not just the threat that homosexuals may some day be allowed to marry in a state other than Massachusetts. An elected official should certainly lead by example.

While I can imagine someone on the Daily Show asserting this with a perfectly straight face, too -- reductio ad absurdem -- Rep. Davis is evidently quite serious.

Frankly? I wish he would manage to get that language into the proposed amendment, so that the populace can at least see an unhypocritical and logically consistent proposal, and maybe ponder exactly where this sort of sanctimoniousness leads before tossing the whole thing out as rubbish.

For the record, there are at least 29 divorced members of the House (the statistic, though, masks divorced members who have actually remarried).

(via J-Walk)

Filed under :: Gay Stuff :: Love and Marriage :: ZT & PC
Link · Print · Edit · TR/G

I dunno. If marriage is so important, why isn't it mandatory?

Quoth ***Dave ...

That's for next Session.

Quoth Amanda Helstrom ...

After that, I'm sure they'll throw some language in about children being mandatory too. After all, if the point of marriage is between a man and a woman with the purpose of procreation, childless marriages must be some how invalid.

Quoth DOF ...

I liked the episode of the comic strip Boondocks where gran'paw sits his two grandchildren to give them "the talk" about the gay marriage issue. He begins; "First of all, let me just say that all marriage is wrong..."