In fear of a pink planet

by Kenneth Todd Ruiz
Managing Editor

Score another victory for the homosexuals. Three days ago, a Massachusetts court struck down a law prohibiting marriage between members of the same sex.

This might pave the way for recognized gay marriages in the same state to which our Puritan founders escaped the intolerance of Europe.

Perhaps early local history should have been a warning. What self-respecting straight men would start a revolution with a tea party?

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist quickly denounced the decision, and said that marriage is only “the union of one man and one woman.” President Bush added that he would “do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage.”

Amen for the sanctity of the penis and the vagina. After all, the government already made clear that only two humans with opposing genitalia are capable of loving each other.

Fortunately, back in 1996, Congress overwhelmingly passed the Defense of Marriage Act, which established a federal definition for marriage as requiring one penis and one vagina.

“The traditional family has stood for 5,000 years,” said Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, who has a penis and correctly chose to marry a human with a vagina. “Are we so wise today that we are ready to reject 5,000 years of recorded history? I don’t think so.”

What a happier world this would be had Phil’s erudite if-it-ain’t-broke test been applied to the questions of slavery, segregation, gender equality or the rights to vote and own property. As the act implies, we must “protect” marriage from the homosexual legions so keen on destroying it.

Forget international terrorism, we are facing a slippery pink slope into chaos and anarchy.

Queermageddon.

Never could one imagine a more insidious assault on the institution of marriage than millions of people looking to enter into it. Marriage is a sacred union between two people, and we’re not going to share it with just anyone.

Since Tuesday, conservative groups have rallied around a proposed constitutional amendment to outlaw same sex marriages from sea to shining sea. Such an amendment would send a strong message to these dangerous radicals, and their deviant pursuit of matrimony.

In more than 200 years, we’ve amended the Constitution to include free speech, our justice system, and with the 13th, ended the enslavement of a race.

No. 14 says something about the law treating all citizens equally, but that one makes little sense to me, at least as long as gays and the Irish are still allowed citizenship.

Adding a “No Gays Can Marry Amendment” to that list would continue a fine tradition, and honor the unwaveringly straight lines of our Constitution and Flag.

Yes, marriage is certainly sacred.

Fortunately, having dispensed with the uncivilized notion that church and state should be separated, our government can now decide more than who should receive tax relief.

Let’s all hold hands, that is as long as our genitals don’t match, and walk bravely forth into a new era where the government defines what love is, and who is worthy of feeling it.

Kenneth Todd Ruiz, a senior journalism major, is managing editor of the Campus Times. He can be reached by e-mail at kruiz@ulv.edu.