M. Simon sent me a link to a piece which makes some fascinating assertions about what otherwise appears to be a relatively simply piece of legislation (HR 3567), the operative text of which says this:

For the purposes of any Federal law in which marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that individual's marriage is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside any State, if the marriage is valid in the place where entered into and the marriage could have been entered into in a State.

But according to Kerry Jacoby, the statement I just made is a lie. A "complete lie," in fact:

Now, the gay rights lobby is going to try to tell you that all this will only affect same-sex couples, and it won't bother your marriage or your family one little bit.

But that, as well, is a complete lie. They wouldn't want it if it didn't have a more public effect. Because the goal is not to protect private behavior. The goal of the gay rights lobby is, and always has been, to change society and force it to accept their "lifestyle choice" as a legal and moral equivalent to traditional, heterosexual marriage -- or, as we've called it for thousands of years, "marriage."

It is not enough to obtain the same rights and privileges that actual married couples have. It is not enough to have unique protections against perpetrators motivated by aversion to what from ancient times has been recognized in most cultures as aberrant sexual behavior. In addition, gay rights activists demand something that no other minority group is required to be given -- blanket approval of their behavior and unquestioning acceptance of their intellectual and moral arguments.

Once this legislation passes, no state's individual Defense of Marriage Act will stand past the first opportunity the Court gets to strike it down. Once this legislation passes, books about gay adoptive penguins will not be found only in the far reaches of liberal school systems. They will be everywhere. The Administration is already moving this direction. This year's "bullying" curricula are not targeted at those who taunt the skinny kid for wearing glasses, but at those who look askance at the high school boy with a beard and a dress.

Show me where in the Constitution it gives the feds jurisdiction over penguin genitalia!

Really now. I was so shocked that I read the law again. Then I reread it carefully searching for penguin subtexts. In all honesty, I just don't see it at all. So what I'd like to know is, aside from whether the feds should recognize same sex marriages or not, precisely how would the above law lead to books about gay penguins?

No, seriously. Please, someone tell me. I'm all ears. (Might there be a stealth movement to sneak gay penguins in the definition of marriage in the hope that no one will read the laws?)

But I have to admit that there is one part of the new law that I like, and that's the part about blanket approval of my behavior and unquestioning acceptance of my intellectual and moral arguments. I've wanted that for years, especially in this blog. Over the past six years I have put up with untold grief from countless insolent commenters, to say nothing of the vast hordes cruel and callused bloggers who refuse to link me no matter how much I link and praise them or how relentlessly I kiss their asses!

So, while I'm against messing around with gay penguins, it's high time the feds got tough on the mean-spirited cyber bullies who have made my life miserable.

All in all, H.R. 3567 is a wonderful bill which will finally give me some much-needed relief. (I'm so jazzed I'm not going to reread it again!)