Sorry, blondes. You’ve got to go. I respect your right to be blonde, but I will not sanction it with my tax dollars or continue to tolerate the declining standard of morality which blondeness encourages.
This is not bigotry speaking. I believe in every person’s freedom to live in any way that they wish. But my interpretation of the Bible has led me to the conclusion that God intended marriage to be between a man and a woman… a woman who was most definitely not blonde. This is a stand based on the Christian morals with which this country was founded and which a majority of voters believe, and I do not apologize for taking a stand for what is right and proper.
When Adam and Eve were created in the Garden of Eden, the Lord formed Eve from Adam’s rib. My study of the Bible has indicated that this resulted in a woman fashioned after the nature of the marrow… that is to say, dark or red, but not yellow or white. Thus it is not proper to join together a man and a blonde woman, as it is a perversion and a mockery of God’s plan for mankind. We certainly cannot stop these sad blondes from retaining their hair color, but we also cannot sanction their sin. We must provide counseling and help for them, so that one day they too can take their places as responsible brunettes or redheads. I don’t think that they should be forcibly converted, but several organizations have shown that they can take blondes and, through an intensive process of rehabilitation and shampooing, repair the damage and create healthy, God-fearing brunettes and redheads.
Accordingly, I am submitting a plan to my congressman, asking for the introduction of what will be called the Defense of Hairriage Act. It will help to preserve our nation’s fine moral traditions and civic responsibility, by eliminating the possibility that the union of a man and a blonde could be referred to as a “marriage” and thereby dilute that sacred institution. If the act fails, then I will be forced to take the next logical step and introduce a potential amendment to the Constitution.
People have asked me: What if you had a daughter who was blonde? Would you denounce this amendment out of love for her, or would you endorse it in keeping with your stated beliefs? In such a case, I believe I would remain silent on the issue and declare it to be something for the states to settle, not something which involves federal involvement or college newspaper columnist involvement. People might call this a gutless attempt to avoid the matter, not to mention rather hypocritical. I would be forced to lure these people to the woods, and they might have a hunting accident.
Other people have pointed to the late Rep. Gerry Studds (D-Ma), whose spouse has been unable to collect the $114,337 pension which Studds garnered during his 25 years representing Massachusetts in the United States House of Representatives. These people have claimed that it is because Studd’s spouse was blonde that he has been unable to collect the pension, and this proves there is no need for my proposed Act or amendment. I can only reply that this is untrue, and I am sure there is some other reason Mr. Dean Hara has been unable to receive his benefits as Rep. Studd’s husband. I just don’t know what that reason could possibly be.
The main problem, mind you, is not the behavior of those quiet blondes whom we can easily ignore as long as they don’t publicly flaunt their hairstyle choice.
The problem is the campaigning of these militant blondes who march in pro-blonde parades and try to corrupt our children. If these blondes continue to try to destroy American values, we will no longer be able to ignore their blatant moral terrorism. These cornsilk-haired floozies are striking at the very heart of what makes us a Christian and God-fearing country, and we must take whatever action is necessary to stop them. They hate freedom, and every day they are plotting to destroy our liberty in a maelstrom of golden curls.
It seems obvious to me that if blondes wish to side with terrorism, then they should be classified as such, regardless of whether or not they are United States citizens. They are giving comfort to the enemy, and should be detained. It is not necessary to reveal exactly why they should be detained in a court of law, since it would hinder our ability to prosecute the blondes. We will take them to a military base, somewhere offshore, maybe on an island to our south, and imprison them until we are able to wring all of their filthy blonde plots from them. Torture might even be necessary, since we will do whatever is necessary to preserve our liberty.
Blondes are trying to corrupt our sacred institution of marriage and destroy the freedoms we hold dear, and I for one will not stand for it.