So the House has rejected a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. I’ll just come out and say it. By rejecting this gay marriage ban, the House has rejected American Family Values. The vote was 236-187 in favor of the gay marriage ban, which means what? It means we have 187 Communists representing us in our own government. Now, I read things sometimes, and I know that some people argue against a gay marriage ban by saying things like: “A Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage would introduce the first Constitutional amendment that actually takes away someone’s rights.” And to that, I say: Not if we get a flag burning amendment in place first; then it would be the second, smart guy!
And I know, too, that sometimes Republicans represent our party as the party of small government (which we are!), which is why most libertarians who aren’t voting libertarian (libertarians who want their vote to count) vote Republican rather than Dumbocrat, and leftist devilfarts like to point out that laws demanding enormous sentences for “victimless crimes” like drug use, attempts to pass laws against abortion, and bans on gay marriage are all antithetical to social libertarianism, to which I say: A Christian government can only be so small before it loses its Christianity. I mean, come on. Everybody knows that by “party of small government” what we are really talking about is cutting social programs, not, I repeat, not compromising our Christian Values to political ends, I don’t care what the libertarians say. Sure, if you look at gay marriage logically, it seems reasonable. Why not extend marriage to an historically marginalized group of consenting adults? If marriage was expanded to include gay folks (and why on earth, by the way, have we allowed them to hijack the word “gay,” which was a perfectly good substitute for “happy” until they stole and perverted it, like they want to do to our children!?) — if marriage was expanded to homosexuals, it could be argued, marriage would still consist of a social contract between two consenting adults, both entering the arrangement of their own accord, as a means of proclaiming their love to each other and having it officially recognized by their family, friends and community; it could be argued that such an expansion of marriage would actually extend family values by allowing homosexuals to form their own families, recognized by God and government, and not, in fact, degrade family values. It could be argued that banning such a union is actually antithetical to Americans’ professed love of freedom, since, quoting Thomas Jefferson in a different context, it “neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” It could be argued that continued marginalization of a group of people who are simply entering into relationships with people of the same gender, and wish those relationships to be recognized in the same fashion as heterosexuals’ relationships are, stinks of a provincial prejudice. And it could be argued that — as evidenced in Gay Marriage: For Better or Worse? What We’ve Learned From the Evidence — since gay marriage was made legal in the Netherlands, the rate of heterosexual marriage has actually increased and divorce rates have declined, so, based on the statistics in a country where gay marriage is legal, it seems to have absolutely no negative social effect. Yeah, I know, all of those arguments could be made.
But I have one thing to say to someone who would make such arguments: Get out of my country, you atheist liberal scum.