The House of Representatives debated the Gay Marriage Amendment yesterday despite the fact that it has no chance of becoming law since the Senate has already rejected it. Just the same it still allowed various (mostly Conservative) politicians a chance to grandstand about the importance of protecting the sanctity of marriage from those nasty gay people who are out to undermine it and the American family. It consisted of a lot of the idiocy we’ve come to expect from the Right on the issue, but there was at least one politician who made a very good point during the debate.
That person was Rep. Lincoln Davis, a Democrat, and he said was against the amendment because it doesn’t go far enough in truly protecting the institution of marriage:
- LINCOLN DAVIS: 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.
Emphasis mine. I can imagine there’s a few Conservatives out there (*cough*Daryl*cough*) who would be more than happy with such an amendment, but I doubt even the staunchest Conservatives in Washington are seriously entertaining the idea. I don’t even think Rep. Davis really wants to see such an amendment, but rather is using it to make a solid point on the hypocrisy of politicians who claim to be defending a venerable, but supposedly vulnerable institution.
I’d love to see some Conservatives called out by reporters to respond to Rep. Davis’ proposed expansion of the amendment. The hemming and hawing that’d take place would probably be highly amusing if you can overlook just how pathetic it really is.
How tongue-in-cheek was he? Dude has a 72% legislative rating from Christian Coalition (and it’s only 72 because, well, he *is* a Democrat); I wouldn’t assume he doesn’t want to see just that.
“I applaud Rep. Davis’ defense of the marriage of institution, and it’s clear from the headlines and courtrooms today, in a land of unelected activist judges passing laws from the bench, that the most immediate threat to marriage is the homosexual agenda, and it’s clear from what the American people are saying that it is here that we have an obligation to draw a line in the sand to protect marriage, the most important God-given social institution we have ...”
That’s the way I suspect someone would spin it.