WARNING: rant alert! Read on if you don’t mind me ranting about idiots.

I’m still seething after reading a “New York Times article”: about the Federal Marriage Amendment. You know how I feel about the stupidity of the proposed constitutional amendment, but this particular quote incensed me:

_”Marriage does matter,” said Senator Wayne Allard, Republican of Colorado and the author of the amendment. “It matters to our children, it matters in America. Marriage is the foundation of a free society and courts are redefining marriage.”_

I take issue with many aspects of that statement, but one part left me flabbergasted. “Marriage is the foundation of a free society.” _What?!?_ How exactly does that work? What aspect of freedom is provided by marriage? Which part of the Declaration of Independence called for marriage reform? Is free speech threatened by divorce, or is it search and seizure that’s imperiled by pre-marital sex?

Seriously, now. Has it become vogue to claim that anything one doesn’t agree with is a threat to freedom? Can I say that computers are the foundation of a free society and write an amendment banning Microsoft software? Or can I claim that intelligence is the foundation of a free society and call for the Pop Quiz Voting Act? *Of course not.* There are free Luddites, free PC users, and free “senators from Colorado”:, just as there are free divorcees, free Shack-Up Honeys(tm), and free (gasp!) gays.

Getting right to it (because you knew I would), which freedom is it exactly that’s being threatened by allowing gay people to get married? In fact, is there _anyone_ who actually requires “protection” from a married couple? Let’s see… other married couples? Nope… children? Nope… will governments topple? No… businesses? N… wait. Hm. That’s interesting. Businesses might have to pay out additional benefits if more people can get married. Aha. So the statement should have read:

_”[Restricting] Marriage [to as few people as possible] is the foundation of a free [market] society.”_

Hm. Or he could just be an idiot.

4 thoughts on “Idiocy

  1. I think you have a very good point, sir. It’s not passing, by the way. Which is a relief. It’ll be interesting to see what the layout is when they try it again next year.

  2. Yep. Unfortunately, the goal wasn’t to pass the amendment. The goal was to bait Kerry and Edwards into a damaging Senate debate so the next round of attack ads could say, “…and they argued against marriage, the foundation of a free society!”

    Luckily, the debate was voted down too. John and John were able to give noncommittal statements.

Comments are closed.