Forget the Federal Marriage Amendment. What We Need Is An Amendment Banning Marriage To Dogs
There's been a lot of talk about this Federal Marriage Amendment lately. Those against the amendment believe that banning gay marriage in America takes away basic freedoms from millions of American citizens. They say that if straight people have the right to marry, then why shouldn't gay people be allowed to also?
Supporters of the new amendment frequently counter such claims by stating that they have no real problem with gays getting married. They only fear the "slippery slope" that such a precedent-setting amendment could put our nation on. "If gays are allowed to marry each other," they say, "than what's to stop people from marrying animals?"
This makes sense, of course, because it follows that canine marriage is the next logical step after allowing gay couples to marry and raise children in love-filled, caring environments . . .
Run for the hills! People are marrying dogs!
There's only one way to shut these people up. Let's ban marriage between people and animals. While were at it, let's make amendments preventing marriage between relatives, and the marriage of more than two people.
With no slippery slope, these homophobes will be forced to state their real opinion: namely, that they simply don't want gays to get married.
That is, of course, if we can get such an amendment passed . . . after all, passing such an amendment would undoubtedly lead to infringements on other states' rights. . .
Hey, look. A dog!
« Back (Volume 3, Issue 7)
[Current Issue]
*And by Chaz Frankly, we mean Daniel Riehs.
Why is this footnote here?
