Yesterday, our President called for a constitutional amendment to ban marriages except for those between one man and one woman. While the press has focused on same-sex gay marriages, the implications are far greater than acknowledged by the mainstream media.I’ve discovered that, following Mr. Bush’s statement, one Mr. John Stump filed for the State to recognized his special permanent relationship to the Red Sox, a love that dare not speak its name too often. Then there’s Loretta Lomax, the former Mrs. Stump, who is asking the State to recognize her long-standing commitment to her career in financial services marketing.
It’s a lifestyle choice, says Ms. Lomax, and the State should not interfere with a relationship as fulfilling and loving as I have ever experienced. There is nothing unnatural about it.
Aides to Sen. Hillary Clinton strenuously denied rumors that following the Massachusetts’s ruling, the former First Lady is preparing to divorce her presidential spouse in order to marry her ambitions.
The President’s proposal was greeted warmly by some. Several gay Americans view the legal right to marry as the first step down a slippery slope towards having to go to Derek’s parents for Thanksgiving and listening to his idiot brother talk about his TiVo.
President Bush’s Justice Department is now preparing to take on an even more contentious issue than same-sex marriage: spousal rights in no-sex marriage. A suit brought by Mr. Harold Flattis seeks to end his marriage of 26 years after catching Mrs. Flattis in bed for the third time wildly girating with her ipod.
Greg Palast, author of The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, is happily married to his laptop.