We the straight people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect heterosexual union, establish justice (except for gays), insure domestic tranquility (oh, yeah, and except for those lesbians, too) (except if it’s like, some hot coed who’s really just experimenting and will eventually settle down but probably someday suggest to her husband that they engage in a consequence-free threesone with a close female friend), provide for the common defense of marriage, promote the general welfare (of non-fairies), and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves (and let us stipulate that ‘ourselves’ means ‘us who aren’t going to go around abusing said liberty by trying to marry a “same sex” partner) and our posterity (assuming that our posterity gets his act together and stops hanging around with those suspiciously well-dressed friends of his, you know what we mean? It’s not like we didn’t raise him right, send him to the best schools and whatnot, so if he thinks he can turn this little phase (which we all go through, by the way, at least some of us, at least to the point of having THOUGHTS about it, but always remembering that such thoughts are bad, bad things that show a weakness of spirit and must be beaten out of us by our spouses, preferably with a firm paddle) - anyway, if he thinks he can live THAT sort of lifestyle and still enjoy the “blessings of liberty,”, well, he and his flouncy friends have got another thing coming, let’s be clear on that), do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United Straights of America.
Fanny RoboratIn the FanAp Shop
Buy Adam's new novel, Mo's political exposé and more in the FanAp Shop
26 comments
daniel
February 25, 2004 at 4:36 pm
1i dont kno how u got this up while i was on the site, but I still dont agree with u.
sly
February 25, 2004 at 4:37 pm
2Thank god they’re preserving the sanctity of marriage! How courageous! Now, what time is “My Big, Fat, Obnoxious Fiancé” on again?
KatherineW
February 25, 2004 at 5:00 pm
3Oh my gosh, this is TOO funny! And scary in how true it is. I can’t believe that people keep trying to argue for the “sanctity of marriage” in the age of “Who Wants To Marry A Multi-Millionaire?”, Britney Spears’ 52-hour marriage and the Carmen Electra-Dennis Rodman debacle. I wish they could all understand that love is just love.
Neros
February 25, 2004 at 5:12 pm
4I am so happy that in the face of God we are all equal. Well, except those right-winged christian fellars who are a little bit more than the rest of us, and thus are able to influence the Man (who is probably a boy mentally), to make this religious jugdement something political.
Ahh, yes.. America, land of the idiots who elected Bush Jnr..;)
tim
February 25, 2004 at 6:23 pm
5And if you think the Preamble 2.0 has a lot of parenthetical asides, you ought to see the First Amendment 2.0.
Chris
February 25, 2004 at 6:47 pm
6The good news is that this amendment crap is likely to totally alienate Bush to a lot of voters. And aside from a few vocal religious conservatives, I doubt it will really motivate his base.
Lachlan
February 25, 2004 at 7:43 pm
7I think I wet myself trying not to guffaw at work!
Amen, Mr. Felber. We gotta laugh at the absurdity of it all. I mean, jeez, my partner and I are SO DANGEROUS to the fabric of marriage, since we work 3 jobs between us, adore our cat, watch movies, read books, and pretty much do the same things that the rest of the country does.
Aren’t you scared? I can feel the pall of fear settling upon the land now, mwahahahaha!
aaron
February 25, 2004 at 7:45 pm
8Adam, haven’t you been listening?!?!
This ammendment is NOT meant to discriminate against gays, it’s to protect our laws against ACTIVIST JUDGES!!! In fact, I’m pretty sure I have yet to hear a single ammendment-backer even say the words “gay,” “lesbian,” “same-sex” or “homosexual” throughout this entire debate.
Clearly, this ammendment has nothing to do with discrimination at all. It’s simply going stop a group of people deemed inferior from doing something everyone else can do. What’s discriminatory about that?
tess
February 25, 2004 at 8:11 pm
9as long as we don’t get into another argument with someone else who’s seemingly pro-bush but professes to dislike the man. i’m too tired to argue today.
Erik
February 25, 2004 at 8:50 pm
10Indeed.
Mark Ludovich has a more concise version, as well.
Jay
February 25, 2004 at 8:51 pm
11I have yet to hear a cogent, religion free, explanation of why or how allowing same sex marriage is a threat to mixed sex marriage. Anyone?
daniel
February 25, 2004 at 10:12 pm
12well if your lookin 4 religion free, i dont think any ones gonna have a reason. my life is mostly based around my religion.
Murray
February 25, 2004 at 10:49 pm
13daniel, it sure can’t be around your writing skills.
I’m willing to give a hundred bucks to the first pious defender of marriage who can explain how gay marriage hurts HIS marriage. On TV, on radio, all I hear is double talk.
So, once again. When the reasons given don’t make sense, they aren’t the real reasons.
Let’s just be honest guys, it’s called homophobia.
Adam, your amendment needs to include Zha Zha (sp?) Gabore, Liz Taylor, Henry VIII, Brittany, Madonna, and a pile of others who just can’t seem to get with that sanctity in marriage thing.
Eva
February 25, 2004 at 11:37 pm
14Yes marriage is the bedrock of American culture. Once people stop respecting it we are done. From Neil Bush’s recent divorce:
(THIS IS NOT A JOKE)
Bush: “I had sexual intercourse with perhaps three or four, I don’t remember the exact number, women, at different times. In Thailand once, I have a pretty clear recollection that there was one time in Thailand and in Hong Kong.”
Brown: “And you were married to Mrs. Bush?”
Bush: “Yes.”
Brown: “Is that where you caught the venereal diseases?”
Bush: “No.”
Brown: “Where did you catch those?”
Bush: “Diseases plural? I didn’t catch…”
Brown: “Well, I’m sorry. How … how many venereal diseases do you suffer from?”
Bush: “I’ve had one venereal disease.”
Brown: “Which was?”
Bush: “Herpes.”
Chris
February 26, 2004 at 1:17 am
15Eva: Ouch..
“Let’s just be honest guys, it’s called homophobia.” Straight to the point, as usual, Murray.
The amendment won’t happen (I hear Republicans in Congress don’t want to touch it), but it’s disgusting to see this kind of discrimination on a national stage, by our President of all people. Maybe in more enlightened days a hundred years from now, people will look back on Bush and see him for what he really is! Bush going down in history as a bigot might make the nightmare of this administration worth it…
Not that that helps us much right now. Hm.
Andy
February 26, 2004 at 1:33 am
16United Straights of America!!!! Thanks Adam for calling it so succinctly.
Corwin Haught
February 26, 2004 at 7:28 am
17Is responce to Lukovich:
He’s not letting gays run for congress? Brankey Frank’s gonna pissed!
Bob
February 26, 2004 at 11:53 am
18“well if your lookin 4 religion free, i dont think any ones gonna have a reason. my life is mostly based around my religion.”
That’s fine, Daniel, as long as you don’t expect the rest of us to base our lives on your religion.
Miel
February 26, 2004 at 2:10 pm
19Eva–Wow. Is that for real?
Yeah, this makes me wonder what will they put in the amendment? How will it be phrased? I hope it doesn’t require us to never USE the word ‘marriage’ except when referring to the union of a man and a woman. So we can’t say “Mississippi mud pie comes from the marriage of baking and ice cream sundaes” without being imprisoned or fined.
They better be extra careful and make sure that they say ‘a HUMAN man and woman’ and perhaps they should be extra-extra careful and mention chromosomes?
I guess there are some silly amendments already–like prohibition and cancelling prohibition. The ‘oops we got carried away’ ones they don’t spend much time on in Constitutional Law.
Eva
February 26, 2004 at 3:03 pm
20The Daily Howler says it is real.
Anonymous
February 26, 2004 at 8:18 pm
21George Bush is against homosexual marriage.
Osama bin Laden is against homosexual marriage.
“You’re either with us or against us.” -George Bush
katie
February 26, 2004 at 10:56 pm
22hmmm….. maybe Georgie Boy and Osama should get hitch for a trial period of, say, 1 year. As my grandma always said, “How can you KNOW you don’t like it? You haven’t TRIED it yet!!!” (Of couse, Nanny was usually referring to some sort of green vegetable on my plate, but I’ve found that the general sentiment of the statement trancends to cover most of life pretty accurately… )
Chris
February 28, 2004 at 12:39 am
23Ahahaha….I love the idea of your grandmother discussing homosexuality with you in those terms.
katie
February 28, 2004 at 10:39 am
24Miel,
Mississippi Mud Pies…… YUMMY!!!!!!! Wonder if I can find someplace serving it for breakfast?
Coren
February 29, 2004 at 3:54 am
25Yknow, even if you bring the bible into it..there’s nothing. It comes up less than 10 times, including the oft quoted Leviticus. Of course, that having all those lovely rules like no shirts made of more than one material, and no tattoos. Since we observe those, we clearly must follow this, right? And the main usage was only translated as homosexual in the last century, and in fact likely doesn’t mean that, given it’s usage historically.
..oh hell, I’m using facts, sorry.
Eddie
March 10, 2004 at 5:48 am
26“And the main usage was only translated as homosexual in the last century, and in fact likely doesn’t mean that, given it’s usage historically.
..oh hell, I’m using facts, sorry.”
Out of interest, can you back this up? I’ve never heard it.