 |
Defending marriage? There Oughta Be a LawBy Rick Horowitz "Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. Today's decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court violates this important principle. I will work with Congressional leaders and others to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage." A statement from President Bush It's just so touching! And reassuring, too. Knowing that, with all the other problems facing the country these days -- the war in Iraq, the constant threat of terrorism here and abroad, the millions of people still out of work, the crushing cost of health care, our dilapidated schools and crumbling highways, and on and on -- the folks who run things in Washington still feel they can spare the time and find the energy to draft and debate and try to pass a law, or even a constitutional amendment, that says who can marry whom, or more to the point, who can't marry whom because it makes some other people feel icky. Your tax dollars at work. And a good thing, too -- that's what I say. After all, it's only a short hop from sanctity to sanctimony; who better to bridge that gap than a professional politician? Or better still, several hundred! Naturally, I want to help. I've even got the perfect proposal for them. (Not a marriage proposal -- a legislative proposal.) After all, if you're as committed as these people clearly are, at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, to preserving, protecting and defending the institution of marriage, you do whatever you can, right? Right. So I say they should pass their law, or their amendment, or whatever it is -- but only after they pass mine. Mine would have some real teeth in it. That's because mine would amend the federal criminal code. It would make certain kinds of marriage-subversive behavior illegal. That's kind of a radical idea, I know, so I thought I'd start small, kind of like a pilot project: The law I'm proposing would only apply to the politicians themselves. In fact, it would apply only to the politicians who vote for that other proposal -- the anti-gay-marriage proposal -- or give speeches supporting it, or run TV ads bragging about their support. Brave defenders of the sacred institution, every one of these folks -- and a perfectly reasonable place to start our crusade, don't you think? So here's what my bill would say: No more politicians ignoring their spouses for weeks at a time while they go off to endless rounds of fundraising dinners. No more politicians trotting out their spouses as campaign props, or for photo ops. No more politicians forgetting their spouses' birthdays, or their anniversaries, or their kids' birthdays (or their kids' names). And when they do remember, no more sending some staff member out to buy the cards and the presents. Those would all be misdemeanors. I've also got some felonies. If you want people to pay attention, you have to have some felonies: Married politicians won't have a little thing going on on the side with one of their staffers. They won't have a little thing going on on the side with somebody else's staffer. They won't have a little thing going on on the side with a lobbyist. They won't have a little thing going on on the side with another politician. They won't -- That's enough for now. I realize I've only scratched the surface, but I figure my bill will still do more to protect the institution of marriage than that other thing would ever do. Which is why I'm expecting dozens -- hundreds! -- of calls from elected officials eager to stand up and be counted. We have to start somewhere. At least until we can make hypocrisy a crime. Posted 11/20/03.
Click to "Rick's" for the latest -- so entertaining, it has to be illegal!
|
  |
Rick Horowitz
