Many proponents of amending the constitution to prohibit same sex marriage talk as if their true worry is not really same sex marriage. Instead, they worry that the slide down the slippery slope will end with people marrying animals.
John Smoltz, the Atlanta Braves pitcher was recently asked about same sex marriage. He replied "What's next? Marrying an animal?"
Via Charles Kuffner, I learned that Texas Senator John Cornyn spends his days in fear that if the Constitution is not amended, folks will be marrying box turtles.
Timothy Daily, a Senior fellow at the Family Research Council is worried that people may start to marry ponies.
Then there is Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum but you already know about his worries about relationships with canines.
Jay Bookman of the Atlanta Journal Constitution proposes action to end such concerns:
If the real, underlying issue in this debate is the fear that human beings will someday be allowed to marry animals -- if Smoltz, Dailey and others are honestly and truly worried by that prospect -- then let's address that issue head on. Let's pass a Federal Animals, Relationships and Marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution that outlaws all interspecies marriages, period.The FARM act would have two other important advantages over the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment. First, this is a deeply divided nation, and the last thing we need is something to get us even angrier at one another. What we need instead is something that will unite us, a cause that all of us can rally behind. And surely all Americans … can get behind the FARM act and thus protect human-to-human marriage from this dire threat.
By championing the FARM act, President Bush could finally make good on his promise to be a uniter, not a divider. And John Kerry could use the amendment to demonstrate yet again that there are some issues too important to compromise on. As far as I know, he is now and has always been opposed to human-animal sex, even during the '60s.
While this might be a great idea it could lead to shutting down of one of my favourite sites: http://www.marryyourpet.com/
Posted by: Scaramouche at July 12, 2004 09:13 PMYahoo News says Bush's daughter, Barbara, is hitting the campaign trail. The Blogosphere should start a campaign for her to join the military. Remember the "Fair and Balanced" campaign. Every liberal blog should post "Mr. Bush, you sacrifice our kids, why not yours?" on their sites.
In Oregon an early version of a homophobe referendum lumped homosexuality in with bestiality, but the final version left bestiality out. My feeling was that the issue was a little touchy for some of the homophobes, because after all, if I like it and the sheep doesn't mind, wher's the problem?
Posted by: Zizka at July 15, 2004 12:58 AMOnly problem is, Cornyn never said that remark about turtles. The Post ran a correction the next day, and Andrew Sullivan retracted it. Read a clarification here.
Posted by: atticus at July 16, 2004 12:31 PMAnd everyone knows what a bear for honesty Andy is.
No, Cornyn didn't SPEAK "that remark about turtles." He only wrote it into his remarks and distributed them as the text of his speech.
Standard Rapethepublican ploy. Look at King George Bush II, who said that the pair of sox down his Y-fronts marked "the end of combat operations" in Iraq. The words just didn't appear that way in the printed text of his Mission Accomplished speech. Look at the how-many-thousands of let's-you-and-him-fight pro-war bloggers who challenged everyone to find an instance of KGBII actually referring, word for word, to "an imminent threat" (accept no substitutes).
Any such parsing of the language is OK If You're A Republican.
Posted by: WarblogTHIS at July 19, 2004 04:08 PM