Jul 312015
This entry is part 20 of 35 in the series Gay Marriage
Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa)

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa)

It worries and embarrasses me the idiocy I see in too many of our elected officials, and making it worse is the knowledge we elect them, and keep re-electing them. Evangelicals and Conservatives, especially Republican conservatives seem to try to out-stupid each other, and the rhetoric has simply crossed a line, especially on the gay marriage issue. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa[they should be really proud]) provides a ton of grist for the stupid mill, and I think his latest, were he anyone else, would qualify him for a Baker Act petition.

According to King:

“I had a strong, Christian lawyer tell me yesterday that, under this decision that he has read, what it brings about is: It only requires one human being in this relationship—that you could marry your lawnmower with this decision. I think he’s right.”

Of course, these unnamed legal advisers never seem to have a name, but that’s a whole other blog post some time. (And what the hell is a “strong, Christian lawyer” anyways.)

Let’s think about the logic that has to support a statement like this. Marriage requires consent. The recent Supreme Court decision, Obergefell v. Hodges (to which King is referring), does nothing to change that requirement. Consent requires some affirmative action. You have to sign something, or speak an affirmation (Do you, Briggs and Stratton, take Steve King, etc….). I’m going to assume King doesn’t have a haunted self-propelled mower which “mowed” its consent into his yard.

So what does that leave. It means King has to assume that a mower can consent. Which means mowers have to able to speak, which, I’d have to assume, means King believes mowers can speak. I’d think it he would need some first-hand knowledge of that ability, which likely means he hears his lawn mower speak to him.

Now let’s just be honest here. If any average Joe on the street started claiming his lawn mower could speak to him (along with that being a qualification to own a gun), likely his friends and family (or law enforcement), would file a Baker Act petition, and try to get him some help. So why is no one filing a Baker Act request on behalf of Mr. King here?


Series Navigation<< Our Overworked Legislature-No More Car TesticlesAn Open Letter to Anti-Gay “Christians” >>

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.