My Fellow Merkuns 

Our president on the marriage amendment

This week, I have turned Headcase over to a guest columnist, President George Bush -- CB

Good day, my fellow Merkuns. I am proud to write you today in support of a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union of a man and woman. Although an overwhelming majority of Merkuns disfavor adoption of this amendment, and although the Republican Party has long claimed to support individual freedom, it is my solemn duty to act as God would in his righteous meddling in the choice of our mates. Plus which, this amendment will placate the remaining 30 percent of voters who approve of my performance and whose votes are needed during the midterm election to retain a Republican majority in Congress and thereby protect me from foolish talk of impeachment.

I have thought long and hard about my support of this amendment. As you know, many states have adopted laws to protect marriage. Voters have overwhelmingly supported those laws, but activist judges continue to overturn them. So me and a minority of Merkuns have got to undercut the judiciary by adopting this amendment before marriage becomes something unspeakable.

At this very moment, Laura is on her knees praying that our own marriage will not be redefined by two men marrying in Massachusetts. We don't want them in our bed with us and we should have the right to protect ourselves. I don't know about you, but I don't want to wake up one morning and feel like I should have sex reversal surgery. That's happening all over Canada and Spain -- married men abandoning their families and spending life savings on breast implants. (Karl Rove told me all about it.)

This is not the first time the judiciary has acted contrary to popular sentiment to redefine marriage. In 1967, when I was just a coke-sniffing lad, the Supreme Court overturned state laws against miscegenation. That's a big word for racial intermarriage. You might not know that earlier, in 1912, there was a failed effort to adopt a constitutional amendment outlawing these interracial unions.

I advise you to look around when you're next at your Wal-Mart or any other great Merkun institution you support with your hard-earned dollars. What do you see? That's right: All kinds of oddly brown people. (People like the love child of John McCain, according to Karl Rove.) That's what has happened to the USA. We'd be a lot paler had that amendment been adopted in 1912 or the activist Supreme Court hadn't overturned state laws protecting the precious wombs of our beloved white women from invasion by predatory macrophallic men of another, darker race.

I know that some of the 70 percent of Merkuns who give me a bad job rating wonder why this issue, which I have ignored since the 2004 election, is so important again. They point to the war in Iraq, the massacre at Haditha, the stagnant war on terror, the skyrocketing cost of gasoline and health care, the Medicare prescription debacle, the Abramoff scandal, the Valerie Plame scandal, the destruction of New Orleans, the reduction in veterans' benefits, the huge deficit and the proposal to increase it by $1 trillion through abolition of the estate tax, so on and so forth forever, whine whine whine.

They wonder why the Senate spends time debating the amendment, even though they know it will not pass, while all these other matters are put aside. This is the usual short-sightedness of liberal Democrats, independent progressives, Libertarians, moderate Republicans and other moonbats out of touch with Jesus. We cannot solve these other problems until we address their root cause, which is, of course, the sin of homosexuality. There, I said it. I've managed to avoid use of that word or the word "gay" in my talks about protecting marriage.

But it's time to lay our cards on the table. Can any among us not see that if we grant people the freedom to love and marry whom they choose, the national debt will spiral out of control and Islamic fundamentalists will begin blowing themselves up at gay bridal registries in Abercrombie & Fitch stores all across the nation? Do we want the next threat to marriage to be a mushroom cloud? We know this is a distinct possibility. (Karl Rove told me so.)

All Americans deserve respect. But we must also preserve the sacred institution of marriage, upon which the stability of our very society depends, despite a 50 percent divorce rate. Remember, sodomy is a sin precisely because it is a temptation. Pleasure in love must be regulated just as misery in marriage must be celebrated and preserved for only the truly deserving.

Cliff Bostock holds a Ph.D. in depth psychology.

Comments (2)

Showing 1-2 of 2

Add a comment

Subscribe to this thread:
Showing 1-2 of 2

Add a comment

Latest in Headcase

More by Cliff Bostock

The Ultimate Doughnut Smackdown
The Ultimate Doughnut Smackdown

Search Events

  1. Goat Farm Economics 5

    Can art and good old-fashioned capitalism breathe new life into one of Atlanta’s most historic and overlooked neighborhoods?
  2. Solving downtown's homeless problem begins with taking the red pill 95

    Peachtree-Pine homeless shelter is the root of downtown's image problem
  3. What is your license plate telling police? 15

    Every day, Atlanta police scan license plates to search for lawbreakers - but where does all of the information go?

Recent Comments

© 2016 Creative Loafing Atlanta
Powered by Foundation