Tea Party Leader Betrius Lamp Slams Obama for Supporting Poet Marriage

Poets would like to get married in order to suffer enough to write Pulitzer Prize-winning books, but parachute out after their partners have burned them with cigarettes only five or six times. They do not understand that marriage is not about being happy or safe. It is about having children.

 

We are proud to bring you, exclusively, neo-conservative and Tea Party juggernaut Betrius Lamp’s response to President Barack Obama’s recent announcement that he supports the legalization of marriage between poets.  

 

BARACK OBAMA’S SUPPORT OF POET MARRIAGE THREATENS RETURN TO PARADISE
by Betrius Lamp

 

In an appalling historic moment this week, Barack Obama (known poet sympathizer) became the first American President to voice support for marriage between poets, which has never—thank God—been legal at the federal level in the United States. Great strides have been made in the right direction lately, with thirty states passing bans on poet marriage. A higher power is winning out over the absurd, fact-based arguments made by supporters of legalization, and the momentum must be sustained!

 

I will get to the inevitable destruction of society that married poets would cause in a minute. First, it’s worth pointing out that they would be a tremendous nuisance. Imagine Allen Ginsberg married to Louis Glück—howling and weeping over the oranges in the grocery store while you are trying to go about your shopping in peace. And worse, they would do the same just on the other side of your backyard fence every time an iris bloomed in their garden! Life is already unbearable for poets. Rather than encouraging these unions that could make it unbearable for the rest of us, we must continue to ban them with an ever-increasing vigor.

 

We must not validate this kind of behavior.

 

Let’s be clear. The issue is not about whether poets are equal citizens who deserve to be treated with dignity. They probably are, and they might. The issue is about the public purpose of marriage. For centuries, in every society, marriage has been about a commitment between a lawyer and a housemaid, or a banker and a secretary. A marriage between two poets would have no more public purpose than a non-profit organization that tries to educate homeless youth or a U.S. Senate without corporate lobbyists to provide valuable guidance!

 

Banning these marriages is the best way to guarantee the well-being of our nation. Just think of the consequences if more and more people pair up and raise bookish, well-informed children. Marriage has always been about molding complacent future generations. As more poets have children together—in spite of their unholy vegetarian wombs—NPR’s audience will continue to grow. The thought makes one shudder.

 

The divorce rate among poets has been staggering. Astronomically higher than that of non-poet families in which one spouse takes regular beatings as a sign that they have gotten what they deserve and should stay put.

 

Remember what’s at stake here—proponents of poet marriage are asking us to commit our society and coming generations to an untested social experiment in which the American way (using books as toilet paper at our cabins, speaking to our wives in grunts rather than sentences) would not be the cornerstones of family life for dozens, or even hundreds, of poet-raised children. There would be other catastrophic consequences as well. Although poet marriage has never been legal in the United States, there is a country we can look to for a display of those consequences: Scandinavia.

 

Poet marriage was legalized in Scandinavia about ten years ago, and it has devastated the institution of marriage. The divorce rate among poets has been staggering—lower than that of Hollywood stars, but astronomically higher than that of non-poet families in which one spouse takes regular beatings as a sign that they have gotten what they deserve and should stay put. These Scandinavian poets are bailing out of marriages that they cavalierly deem “unsatisfying” or “abusive,” and the poems that they publish as a result are significantly lowering the cultural esteem and sanctity of marriage.

 

Poets would like to have it both ways—they want to get married in order to suffer enough to write Pulitzer Prize-winning books, but they also want to parachute out after their partners have burned them with cigarettes only five or six times. They simply do not understand that marriage is not about being happy or safe. It is about having children.

 

By God’s very plan, neither partner in a marriage should be intelligent.

 

Let’s be honest: poets are humans who have evolved in the image of the devil. A look at the first couple makes it clear. Genesis is definitive! By design, neither Adam nor Eve could read or think for themselves—two things that poets are notorious for! By God’s very plan, neither partner in a marriage should be intelligent. The apple was the gateway to knowledge, after all, and we as a society have been doing a really great job of regressing back to Eden. Poets are a threat to the very process of returning to paradise!

 

Last, but not least, if God had wanted poets to marry each other, it would say so in the Bible. It does not. Any union between these people is unholy, and when President Obama and his busybody wife arrive in hell, may they discover that it is an endless poetry reading.