Friday, June 16, 2006

A Swift Stroke of the Keys

This is a long one. Sorry.

Recently, I stayed in and watched C-SPAN2. I sat and listened with great attention to the arguments of senators and clergy members as to why we need a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as “one man and one woman.” And boy, did they convince me. But not only was I convinced that these preachers were correct, I came to realize that although the Federal Marriage Amendment will protect our country from all sorts of evil, it does not go far enough.

A handful of senators, including Majority Leader Bill Frist, and a handful of civilian speakers all addressed the need to protect children from the erosion of marriage. I had never realized it before, but I came to understand that if two men or two women want to get married, then everyone else’s families are in jeopardy. For example, let’s say I live in a delightful neighborhood where everyone is happily married. (I’m sure I don’t need to tell you that all heterosexual marriages are happy marriages and that all homes with both a mother and father are stable homes.) So in this happy neighborhood, a gay couple moves in. Let’s call them Adam and Steve. One day the liberal courts decide that Adam and Steve can get married. Well, it is obvious that the next thing that would happen is that all the heretofore-happy marriages would immediately break up. Clearly, if gay and lesbian couples were allowed to marry, the society-stabilizing and family-promoting divorce rate of 50% would increase to some sort of unacceptable number. This would be detrimental to children. Not only that, but the children in the neighborhood would be tempted to choose this optional choice, just like the rest of the normal people chose to be straight.

I also came to realize that if Congress passes an amendment that prohibits same-sex marriage, all other marriages would become more stable. Not only that, but all single-parent families would be reunited. It wasn’t until I had it explained to me by some erudite senators and passionate ministers (and even a few rabbis!) that I figured out that the reason families in America today are so unstable is that the “defense of marriage” has not been made into an amendment. Why else would speaker after speaker discuss the statistic that one-third of all children live in a home without a father? As Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama made clear, children with two parents are far better off in life than children with one parent. I could not at first figure out how this argument had any connection to the gay marriage debate, but then I realized that gay marriage must be the cause of family breakups. (It couldn’t possibly be the case that two loving parents, no matter what their genders, are better than one parent.) Despite the argument that children from single-parent homes are more likely to join gangs, do drugs, become criminals, and grow up with no concept of a loving family, it is same-sex marriage that would cause the downfall of society. Why, just the other day I read about a woman whose husband had abandoned her, after years of physical abuse, to raise her two small sons on her own. She worked three jobs, leaving very little time to actually be at home with her boys. She was worried that her sons would turn out bad because of their situation. But now I understand that if only the Constitution of the United States said that two women or two men couldn’t marry each other, then this single mom wouldn’t have to worry. Her family would be safe from deterioration. Her children would be defended!

The benefits of the Federal Marriage Amendment would be far-reaching, to be sure. Not only would all marriages be safe and stable, but also all child abuse and spouse abuse in families would stop. I don’t know the actual statistics, but I am pretty sure that if you were to ask a child abuser why he or she does these evil things, he/she would say that it is because of the fear that someday gay people might be allowed to marry. A man who beats his wife does so because the Constitution does not yet protect his marriage. A woman who cheats on her husband would be faithful if only the United States government sanctified her marriage in the Constitution.

But remember that I also came to realize that the Federal Marriage Amendment does not go far enough to protect our families. We need to ban infidelity and money problems, since these sometimes contribute to divorce. Come to think of it, we should probably just go ahead and make divorce unconstitutional. In fact, it should be against the law to fall out of love with someone. We have to defend our children. Furthermore, as Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas passionately argued, marriage is fundamentally about rearing children. Therefore, we also need a constitutional amendment banning childless marriages. Of course, heterosexuals are free to choose not to have children, but they should not be allowed to marry. (After all: love the sinner, hate the sin.) I know that some people might have naturally occurring problems which prevent them from having children, and those kinds of people are free to live their barren lives in the privacy of their own bedrooms. But we cannot allow these people to redefine marriage as we know it.

Some might argue that my arguments here are illogical. But I am only taking my cue from the wise senators and church-folk that inspired me.

Thank God that we have a brave leader who knows that what our country needs is a Constitutional amendment to protect the sanctity of marriage. The Constitution is an important document, and throughout history is has been amended to protect the rights of American citizens. We must act now to protect the institution of marriage, which could be shattered if just anyone who wants to is allowed to marry. Sure, people can marry each other for money; they can have drive-thru marriages in Las Vegas; they can get married drunk and have their marriages annulled immediately; they can get divorced and remarried as many times as they want; they can marry someone they meet on television (and it might even be a millionaire or a midget!)-- but none of these facts weakens the institution of marriage. (Again, how else can you explain that almost 50% of marriages end in success?) There are many reasons why couples might get married, but at least these people aren't gay.

Our country has a few problems that need to be fixed, but obviously, I do not need to get into long explanations of all of these problems. It is clear they all point to one issue. So, remember that the true cause of all of your problems in society and in your family is that some people feel the offensive need to try to change an institution that has not evolved or changed in any other way for hundreds of years.

15 Comments:

At 4:45 PM, Anonymous Kathy posited...

I agree wholeheartedly. I think the government should get Britney Spears and Eminem to do some PSAs about the sanctity of marriage.

I'm so glad they're focusing on the real issues.

(OK, no more sarcasm--as John Legend said on Bill Maher--Bush & Co. pull this crap every election to rally the conservative voters. when are they going to realize they get all worked up about an amendment that won't be passed?)

 
At 8:10 PM, Anonymous Anonymous posited...

Bravo!

 
At 8:12 PM, Anonymous Your Mom posited...

Sorry! That was my BRAVO!

 
At 9:57 PM, Blogger Houley posited...

Finally, Mr. Wanninger, you've seen the light! Welcome home, brother!

 
At 10:01 PM, Blogger CoachDub posited...

Thanks, Jason. It feels good to be home, though it may take me a while to get used to wearing these blinders.

 
At 11:21 PM, Blogger chris posited...

Jeff Sessions is such a fascist. After I heard him speak one time on MPR I went home and wrote a three page (front and back) letter on why he was wrong. The bastard sent me a picture of himself signed, "thanks for the support, Jeff" I trashed it. But the cunts didnt even let me have my letter back! now i have no concrete idea of what i must have implied to that gay-bashing, homophobic, linching, abortion centre bomber motherfucker.

oh yeah, good post. Very " a modest proposal"

 
At 12:14 AM, Blogger Tay posited...

wait, wait, wait. this is one of those satirical pieces, isn't it? good thing those years of ap english are paying off...

p.s. nicely done wanninger

 
At 1:13 AM, Blogger Tara posited...

for about the first three lines i thought you were serious and i got really confused. then i remembered that there's no way ever that you would be serious about such a thing. and that's why i love you <----------this------------> much.

 
At 5:31 PM, Blogger Carson posited...

We should all be so bold as to follow in the footsteps of Colbert and Wanniger.

 
At 12:55 AM, Blogger *Nicole Elizabeth* posited...

Thanks you Mr.Wanninger... You have brought me to see the truth. who knew gay marriage could cause all those other problems for the "american family". Even if i have to beat my children, expose them to drugs, and leave my husband... i will take any risks to keep my family away from gay couples.

 
At 3:34 PM, Blogger Jake posited...

Ah, that's good satire.

 
At 6:19 PM, Blogger constant_k posited...

Ooooh, a sarcasm detector. THERE'S a useful invention!

 
At 4:56 PM, Anonymous ap posited...

yes.

 
At 10:27 PM, Blogger Houley posited...

I know I could've used one. When sarcasm's really discrete like that, it's tough to detect just on a casual read-through.

 
At 1:42 AM, Blogger constant_k posited...

I was tthhiiiiisss close to switching parties, but tay's comment set me straight.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home