An Unanswered Letter to Eugene Delgaudio

Christopher L. Jorgensen
P.O. Box 546
Ames, IA 50010

February 5, 2009

Eugene Delgaudio
Republican For Supervisor - Sterling District
P.O. Box 1222
Sterling, Virginia 20167

Dear Eugene Delgaudio,

First off, can I please get an autographed photo? A signed photo by a family values crusader like yourself would make me get all gushy! I must apologize, but I just get that way when my fellow man gets all defensive about “traditional marriage!”

I do get a bit confused about some things though. Feel free to set me straight (Ha! That would be a pun if I were gay). Let’s start with marriage. I’m for it. It’s a cool idea. People should do it if that works for them. Why not? Great! Go for it! And I agree that the assault on traditional marriage must end! What I don’t get is what constitutes “traditional marriage.” Traditionally the Catholic Church didn’t entertain the idea of divorce until the Second Vatican Council, and even under the current rules you can’t divorce unless you can prove your wife cheated on you (why is it always the wives!), or some other dumb reason like you never “consummated the marriage” (i.e. did the dirty deed. What idiot would do that?). So please define “traditional.”

Also, I was all onboard with you, was ready to storm the statehouse, once I read, “Whereas: Under pressure from out-of-state radical homosexuals, a rogue Iowa Supreme Court overturned the Iowa Defense of Marriage Act…,” but then I read you were from Virginia! Virginia? Like I said, I get confused. Out-of-state homosexuals = bad. Out-of-state DOMA advocates = acceptable? Seems a bit hypocritical to me. And if there is one thing that squicks me out more than a gay wanting to have a traditional marriage, it’s a hypocrite! So I must demand: Please move to Iowa! We need more men like you to hold back these invading radical homosexuals!

With love and tenderness,

Christopher L. Jorgensen

p.s. If, as we agree, the gays can’t have “traditional marriage,” would it be cool for them to get a “gay” one? This seems like a compromise that would make everyone a bit gay! (And here I use the word gay in its “traditional” definition of “carefree” and “bright and showy!”)