Since the White House has decided to launch a drive to amend the Constitution, so as to ban same-sex marriages, maybe things in the USA really are coming unglued.
So maybe it's about time to put aside old grudges and help the beleaguered president out. One doesn't need to be a strategist in the league of a Karl Rove to see that with the Donkey Derby trampling all over George Bush's approval rating, as it has moved its attention-getting act from state to state, it's time to fight back.
"...Activists courts have left the people with one recourse," the president is reported to have said. "If we're to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America."
With that, the president pinpointed his view of the central issue today. It's not bleeding Iraq. Not even fleeting jobs. Not the swelling deficit. Not the environment. Not health insurance. No, dear reader, it's not even Osama bin Ladenism.
It's the threat to America posed by same-sex marriages.
OK, by Sodom and Gomorrah, if America really needs to alter its Constitution to establish the secular definition of the word "marriage," or to stave off the avalanche of terrible problems same-sex marriages are imposing on society -- whatever they may be -- what else is out there?
There must be other practices that need to be banned by way of Constitutional amendment and preemption is the key that unlocks the door to appropriate action.
The first thing that comes to mind is flag-burning. There have been efforts made toward a Constitutional amendment to prevent such pyromaniacal mischief in the past. But in those instances the measure failed to pick up steam because so few American flags were actually being burned in the USA. Folks naturally asked: Why do we need an amendment, when hardly anybody ever burns the Stars and Stripes?
Well, citizen, that was before 9/11 and the subsequent requisite thinking about preemptive action. Who knows when jobless slackers, or tree-hugging clowns, or anti-war sissies, might resort to burning flags to vent their bitter nonconformity? Although it hardly needs asking, can we afford to wait?
What if some of the above-mentioned usual suspects watch a terrorist yahoo in another country burn an American flag on CNN? What if someone decides to imitate the act? What if Old Glory gets torched in front of an elementary school during recess?
Obviously, to be safe, we either need a Constitutional amendment to prevent television networks from showing such incendiary acts, in the first place, or we might be forced to send troops to that country and put a stop to it. Since such police action could prove to be expensive, to say the least, the total prohibition of flag-burning footage on television is the most practical solution.
Moving on to the next logical preemptive step, there's the potential problem of crazy men putting party dresses on dogs, or pigs, and dancing with them in public places, such as outdoor concerts or nightclubs. Obviously, that sort of thing would undermine the fiber of this nation's sense of morality and decorum. Sensitive children exposed to such species-bending displays could be twisted for life.
Not my kid!
If we don't put a stop to men dancing with dogs in dresses, then how long would it be before a woman puts on pants and dances in public with an animal wearing a lady's dress? What that could lead to is anybody's guess. And, just because it isn't happening all that much, yet, that doesn't mean it can't happen here.
We thought we were safe from terrorists in this country until the truth blew up in our faces. And, don't think this whole same-sex phenomenon isn't pleasing the evil-doing terrorists, utter zeroes that might encourage almost anything to dissolve the glue that fastens American mores and confidence to their origins.
They also might do much worse with dogs than merely dance with them. Arrrgh! One shudders to think.
Not my pooch!