Tuesday, February 24, 2004

If ever I were tempted to fisk: I'm trying to drop my internal temperature enough so that I don't start foaming at the mouth and calling for gay jihad against Bush (re-arrange the White House floral patterns; replace Laura's sensible wardrobe with polyester and go-go boots; call W fat, etc.), but it's hard when the man is just so damn off-his-rocker on certain issues.

I recognize he has to pay back those who got him where he is, and moreover, that he probably does believe in the marriage = man w/ one woman, but ye gods, a constitutional amendment? Marriage is necessary to protect against the weakening of "the good influence of society". This is the same sacrosanct institution that fails more often than it succeeds. This is his idea of a "good influence". And he just says "marriage" not "hetero marriage". Where's the proof that gay marriage won't also strengthen society?

I read somewhere today, I can't remember where, that people think that he ought to get an amendment outlawing adultery as opposed to gay marriage since adultery does more harm to marriages than probably anything else.

Here's some more constitutional amendments:

Ban marriage ceremonies in Las Vegas and Tahoe since these quickie marriages do more to make a mockery out of the institution than gay marriage (see, e.g. Britney et al.)

Ban marriages between or among rock stars and any of the following professions: a) actresses (see Anderson, Pamela Lee); b) models (see Kitaen, Tawny or Jagger, Bianca); and c) umm, okay that's it - as those are the only two groups rock stars marry into, as these sham couplings do more to undermine the sanctity of the holy union than gay marriage

Declare that only one marriage is permitted per citizen as serial marriers do more to destroy the semblance of propriety that marriage bears (see, e.g. King, Larry) than gay marriage.

I'm sure there's many more we can come up with.

No comments: