The amount of time for which Dishonest Abe's party has been in power is becoming especially tiresome to me, because it's making me awfully monotonous. All I do is write bad things about the pachyderms. Cross my heart and hope to die, if the jackasses turn the tables, I'll be dogging them, too, and for almost exactly the same things. But I have no idea how soon that might happen, so I'll have to ask you to take my word for it.
Meanwhile, a few observations from my home in Reactionary Utopia:
1. What I mean by "marriage" is an arrangement invented by God. It is not threatened in the slightest by any alleged attempt by human governments to "redefine" it. The state is, of course, able to give any exotic definition to the term "marriage" that it wishes; outside of the potential for low entertainment, I care not. But then, I am already resigned to the fact that the state is simply organized compulsion (and other forms of evil). It surprises me from time to time, but seldom disappoints me, since my expectations of it are pretty much rock-bottom anyway.
2. Homosexuality is at least as old as recorded history, and no doubt rather older. Scripture clearly views homosexual acts as sinful, and I view scripture as authoritative, so that takes care of what I think about the matter -- to whatever microscopic extent my opinion may have been demanded. (Scripture takes a similar view of gluttony, and drunkenness, and the excessive accumulation of the material goods of this world, and -- most emphatically! -- of gossip; and again, I accept the authority of the word of God, even as I stand guilty of many infractions thereof.) Admittedly, my knowledge of history is far from encyclopedic, but if there has ever been a widespread demand on the part of homosexuals to enter into the forms of family, I'm not aware of it. Be that as it may, though -- if some, or all, homosexuals want to refer to themselves as "married," then obviously the term doesn't mean the same thing in their speech that it means in mine, but -- to (obliquely) paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket.
3. One possible reason for people's being upset about the possibility of widespread, legally-recognized sodomatrimony is that people don't want the supply of government goodies currently handed out to married folk to be diluted by being shared with large numbers of homosexuals. I'm thinking of favorable tax treatment and whatever else there is. To which it seems to me that there's an obvious answer: get rid of the "goodies." For everyone, that is. It would be much harder for our rulers to get us at each other's throats if we weren't glued to their teats, like so many newborn puppies. If we weren't so busy rooting for milk, maybe we'd quit nipping at each other and start noticing what they are doing to us.
4. Overlook -- for a moment -- the GOP's obvious, poll-driven pandering to what they hope will continue to be the über-gullible evangelicals, and look at their idea of a solution to the maybe-problem of activist judges requiring the states to "marry" those in the inverted fraternity (and sorority) who desire such. These evil activist judges tell the poor helpless little elephants that the U.S. Constitution requires that state and local governments provide sodomatrimony as an option to all. Now, a legislator who actually had a serious objection to this might respond by impeaching an activist judge or two, or by simply removing the question from the jurisdiction of the offending court. Both remedies are constitutionally available right now. But the GOPpers are not that sort of legislator. Instead, they furrow the brow; they get all righteously indignant; and they thunder, "Judge So-and-So says that the Constitution requires sodomatrimony! I know perfectly well that it requires no such thing! So we'll show him ... we'll amend the Constitution so that it doesn't require sodomatrimony! (which ... it ... already ... doesn't ... but ... never ... mind) And I mean so that it really, really, really doesn't require it!"
To amend the Constitution is to say that the evil activist judges must have been right -- it really must mandate sodomatrimony, after all! I mean, who "amends" something that isn't flawed, right?
Of course, "trying" to amend the Constitution has an important virtue, in the eyes of our Gee Oh Pee lawfakers: it won't happen. It's beyond their power. Impeaching judges, on the other hand, can be done today -- no amendment needed. Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 is already there; again, no amendment is necessary. But neither of those remedies would be any good: they would require the GOP Congressional majority to take action and be responsible for it. And they would eliminate a very important source of red-meat boob bait, whereby they tell us rubes, "Better vote for us! We'll appoint the right kind of judges! We'll amend the constitution!" No, that would never do, would it?
5. Look at another aspect of the GOP "solution:" it forbids -- yet again! -- the several states from doing something. Yes, indeed, a further centralization of power.
But cheer up, evangelicals. The fight's not over yet. From the news story:
But the defeat is by no means the amendment's last stand, said its supporters.Yes, they'll "keep bringing it up," every other year or so, when a little political pornography is needed to mobilize their electoral vassals. Yes, Mr. Boehner, I'm sure that many House members are feeling an urgent need to get on the record for the edification of the somnolent voters back home. World without end, amen, amen.
"I do not believe the sponsors are going to fall back and cry about it," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "I think they are going to keep bringing it up."
The House plans a redux next month, said Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.
"This is an issue that is of significant importance to many Americans," Boehner told reporters. "We have significant numbers of our members who want a vote on this, so we are going to have a vote."