Creep of the Week: Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio

Last week the Pew Research Center released the results of a survey that found Americans caring a lot more about things related to their pocketbooks and mortgages than whether a guy was marrying another guy.
But surely they didn't take into account the fact that the Washington, D.C. City Council voted earlier this month to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states (those states, as of press time, are Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts and Vermont. We're still holding out hope for California and New Hampshire).
That's right: legally recognized married gays and lesbians right in our nation's capitol. I mean, if that happens, what's next? High crime rates? Struggling public schools? Gang violence? This is D.C., people. We need to protect it with everything we have.
Enter Rep. Jim Jordan, a Republican from Ohio who has his finger on the pulse of the District. Since Congress is the boss of the District of Columbia, Jordan introduced a bill that would smack down the Council's decision and keep gays illegally wed in D.C.
"This is real simple. It's about affirming the ideal," Jordan said, according to the Dayton Daily News. "Affirming that marriage is what marriage has always been. The ideal – when you think about raising future generations of kids, when you think about parenting, when you think about children – the ideal is a mom and a dad."
Ah, yes. The ideal family situation for the children. Because if there's one thing the government can do to better the lives of children, it's pass laws refusing to recognize marriages that don't line up with Jordan's definition of ideal.
Of course, there are thousands of same-sex couples raising children in this country – and surely some of those couples live in D.C. "Those families are not protected," Kim Welter, program manager for Equality Ohio, points out in the Dayton Daily News. "To protect all families, people's relationships need to be recognized."
But Welter is missing the point. The "ideal" is not that all children are protected. The "ideal" is that all children have families that Jordan personally approves of.
So why stop at gays? A child born into poverty isn't ideal. So let's nullify marriages between people whose combined income doesn't take them above poverty threshold. Of course, if two people have to work too much, that means they don't have enough time to spend with their kids, so those marriages should be banned, too. And having a parent who is ill is really difficult on children. So no marriage for you if you've got, say, cancer. Oh, and Jordan is a Christian, so my guess is that his definition of ideal family doesn't include Muslims or Atheists (Jews are probably OK, but only because of the Anti-Defamation League).
"Some things are worth fighting for, and this is one of them," said Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah told the Washington Post. "It's not something I can let go softly into the night…I recognize the Democrats are in the majority, but I represent the majority of Americans on this issue."
Of course, with a Congress controlled by Democrats, it's not super likely that Jordan's bill will move forward, but it's a good indicator that his priorities won't.