rhetorical question:
if bush is interested in passing a constitutional amendment preserving the so-called ‘sanctity of marriage’ does that mean that divorce will henceforth be illegal?
cos looked at objectively and rhetorically it does seem as if divorce is perhaps more of a threat to the sanctity of marriage than gay people wanting to shack up for life.
i, personally, have no opinion. i’m just continuing in my never-ending quest to help the president achieve a modicum of logical consistency in his policy announcements.
and would a ban on same sex marriages affect people who have sex changes while married?
what about hermaphrodites?
would they be prevented from marrying each other(or themselves)?
what about the people who seemingly have no determinable gender(‘here’s pat’, etc)?
and in the interest of drawing attention to one of the more entertaining parts of bush’s state of the union address i, for one, would like to say that i’m thrilled that the leader of the free world has the courage and temerity to deal with the profoundly important issue of steroid use in professional sports.
it’s good to know that our commander in chief has his priorities so squarely in order.
yes, i’m being facetious.
steroids?
was that a subtle dig at the governator?
and again, does this affect the use of steroids in livestock production?
would professional athletes be limited to eating food that had not been tainted with steroids?
would professional athletes be allowed to marry someone(of the opposite sex, i’m assuming)who had used steroids?
would professional athletes be allowed to marry someone(of the opposite species, maybe?)who had been fed steroids?
like a really sexy pig, perhaps?
or a pumped up chicken?
i expect the media to address these extremely salient issues.
thank you,
moby
