...SEVEN SENATE DEMOCRATS HAVE YET TO COME OUT IN SUPPORT OF MARRIAGE EQUALITY

I got this in my email today from a political activist.  So I have decided to let you all know about "Marriage Equality" by Paul Dion.  In case you are wondering whether or not I am going to pull out my moral stance on the subject - I am, but just a little bit.  But I do have one.  A very stubborn one as well as a nuanced one.  Much too complicated for 500 words.  So this is going to be reality based sarcasm.

There are several fundamental non-equalities in a same-sex marriage.  Just for starters, I issue a few.
1. Everyone knows that there is no marriage without a daily quibble or outright spat about the toilet seat being left up.
2. Everyone knows that there is no marriage without a clearly defined owner of who gets the last word.
3. Everyone knows that there is no marriage without the remote possibility of engendering offspring. (I offer Sarah and Abraham as examples.)
4. Everyone knows that there is no marriage in "gender."  SEX is where it's at, not "gender" for crying out loud!
5. So, when all these things add up to "no marriage" then the "gender" of marriage = neuter. (You can look it up in any grammar book where there is no sex, just gender.)  Gender = no marriage.
5a. The question that I have is: "With all this talk about "gender" why do we even bother talking about same SEX marriage?
6. Everyone knows that for a true marriage to exist, the ensuing divorce has to be a vicious battle of wills between a man and a woman fighting over money, property and custody of children.  What's going to happen to that?  Will the lawyers go hungry?
7. Everyone knows that it takes testosterone and estrogen go have a real newsworthy, headline grabbing divorce.  That's why "gender" unions won't work.  The tabloids will go broke because they won't have any more real marriages to denigrate.

I must say, to be fair, that I am solidly convinced that the government can grant marriage licenses to whomever it pleases, provided, of course, that the recipients are human.  That does not mean that I think that what the government does is moral.  Not at all.  In fact I know that it is immoral.  It goes from one bribe source to another to the detriment of the common good.  That is immoral because it contributes to the preparation of the nation for its downfall. I do know, according to the moral principles of the relationship between law and virtue, that the lawmaker should never make a law that countervails virtue.  Laws that are counter basic morality are not enforceable laws and are therefore not real laws at all.  The law must always make it easier to practice virtue.  I don't think that anybody should put the Constitution of the United States of America before the fundamental natural law that governs right human conduct which is in commonality with the Law of God.

We hear a lot about same-sex marriage being an attack on the institution of marriage.  The wise-crack answer is usually, "It's not attacking my marriage."  You're right, except for one thing.  It is an attack on your children's perception of human morality and over time it will erode the moral fiber of this democratic republic...all the way to its downfall.  Remember Greece?  Remember Rome? Remember Constantinople?  

Therefore, every time the lawmaker caves in to a special interest, the greater good suffers at the hands of individual greed and the republic gets weaker and weaker every time.

Remember, you read it here.  That way you won't be tempted to cry at my funeral.