Sometimes even the progressive congressional arbiters of political correctness outdo themselves and leap directly from daily absurdity to terminal lunacy. The Washington Examiner documents the most recent leap.
More than two dozen Democrats have proposed legislation that would eliminate the words ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ from federal law.
Well of course, because they don’t have nearly enough to do. We’re giving the world’s most dangerous terrorist state $150 billion or so with which to supply their terrorist proxies, we’re actually helping them, scientifically, to get nuclear weapons, and we’re actually helping them to avoid sabotage of those efforts. We’re also racing to put European scientists and bureaucrats in their nuclear facilities to prevent Israel from saving itself. They’re destroyed our health care system, but there is much more to come. Our economy is in the toilet, our government is at war with any American that disagrees with it, our national debt is rocketing us into Greece territory, and these pea-brains are worried about the use of “husband” and “wife.”
Those ‘gendered terms’ would be replaced by ‘gender-neutral’ words like ‘spouse’ or ‘married couple,’ according to the bill from Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif.
‘The Amend the Code for Marriage Equality Act recognizes that the words in our laws have meaning and can continue to reflect prejudice and discrimination even when rendered null by our highest courts,’ Capps said. ‘Our values as a country are reflected in our laws. I authored this bill because it is imperative that our federal code reflect the equality of all marriages.
But of course! Why don’t we simply do away with any and all language that might in any way distinguish between the genders. Ooops. Can I say “genders?” After all, it suggests there might be a difference between…something or other.
Let’s take the most obvious symbols of gender–darn it! This is hard!–identification, those that are terribly stereotypical and that personify objectification: the penis and breasts.
Instead of “penis,” let’s call it the “pleasurable reproductive, but not limited to reproduction, sticky-out thing,” or the PRBNLTRSOT (progressives love incomprehensible acronyms, particularly where sex is involved). And instead of “breasts,” let’s call them the “pleasingly pleasurable erotically tipped containers of sexual equality and diversity,” or PPETCSED. This would reflect our values, which obviously fully embrace nit wittery and irrational obfuscation of the most basic concepts.
As one might suspect, this is primarily about gay marriage (isn’t everything these days?):
The Supreme Court ruled in June that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution means all states have to license same-sex marriages, a ruling that effectively ended the same-sex marriage debate in America. Capps said her bill was aimed at taking the next step, which is to ensure the United States Code ‘reflects the equality of all marriages.
But there are also very important legal considerations as well:
She said her bill would also have other benefits if it became law. In one example, she noted that U.S. law says it’s illegal to threaten the president’s wife, but says nothing about the president’s husband.
‘Capps’ bill would update the code to make it illegal to threaten the president’s spouse,’ her office said.
And we certainly couldn’t address that issue without doing away with “wife” and “husband,” could we?
I’ll not waste time making grammatical or logical arguments on this issue. Most Americans already understand such things, and people like Capps are hopeless anyway. I’ll merely observe that there are two best, extraordinarily simple and rational reasons to oppose this:
(1) It’s not broken; we don’t need to fix it.
(2) People like Capps want it.