Not to sound too much like a civics professor, but the congress is made up of two houses, the House of Idiots and the House of Reason. The House of Idiots is a motley crew of over five hundred and, because it’s easy to get lost among that large a group, they say and do things that no sane man would admit to among friends. “Marriage,” they claim “is in jeopardy from activist judges” and further state (with nary a grin or snicker) that “traditional marriage is under attack by those who would strike down our marriage laws in court.” The looser among these cannons would change the Constitution to keep narrow the franchise.
I guess I missed all that “striking down” and I’m sorry about that because it’s a serious issue in the House of Idiots. That’s what happens when your attention drifts, but I was rather under the impression that we were enlarging the franchise of marriage rather than striking it down. Is the union of a man and a woman any weaker because of the union of a man and a man or a woman and a woman? Seems like they would gather strength from the commonality of unions that honor the love and commitment of two people.
But anyway, the point is that the House of Idiots will struggle in vain on this issue because the House of Reason has just kicked it out into the street where it belongs and it takes two to tango in the legislative branch. There’s only a hundred members of the House of Reason and they tend to be a tad more thoughtful on most issues, maybe because they get more individual press. Most of them agreed with Jefferson, when he wrote about religious freedom in Virginia that “whatever religion or no religion my neighbor practices, neither robs my purse nor breaks my leg.” Good point.
I think that’s analogous. Catholics hardly feel “under attack” by Presbyterians or Mormons in the business of religion, at least not in recent history. It would be particularly refreshing to hear from the nations’ pulpits that marriage is in fact stronger and more sacred by the logical extension of the franchise.