In Olden Days a Glimpse of Stocking

In support of “marriage equality,“ the Human Rights Campaign Facebook page is asking like-minded people to wear red and change their profile photos to a pink “equal” symbol on a red background, as Supreme Court justices consider the constitutionality of a state law that bans same-sex marriage.

It seems that some who are posting on leftist coffee klatch sites are accusing conservative commenters of inciting the “slippery slope” argument, equating same-sex marriage with illegal activities such as polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia, or selling soft drinks in large cups.

To the contrary, I believe that people should be free to do whatever and whomever they wish, as long as it doesn’t spook the livestock — only because the stress makes the animals’ meat tougher.

In an effort to promote this philosophy, I encourage readers to publicly display their opposition to any potential legal challenges of such freedoms. I humbly submit a symbol of my own design, free for use as an avatar in solidarity with the “Anything Goes” movement, which I have just coined. It consists of three bright, horizontal bars of different hues on an amorphous, variegated background. Sure, it’s slightly nausea-inducing and is hard to look at for any length of time, but you’ll eventually get used to it.

Warning: image may cause seizures.

Just as corporations are considered persons in legal matters, and those corporations are generally made up of a number of persons, so should all legal contracts, including marriage, be similarly defined and honored. Sure, you can call this “polygamy,” but that word simply carries too much negative baggage, and it’s not inclusive enough.

Any group of creatures of any sex or species, deemed to be of sufficient cognizance (to be determined by a special government panel), should be able to legally marry each other. Two simians, a dolphin and a Unitarian? Why not? The entire surviving cast of Mr. Belvedere? If it’s consensual, what’s the problem? Denying the rights that are implicit in a loving relationship is almost as ignorant and reprehensible as denying catastrophic man-made climate change.

You may argue that this would also render moot any laws that prohibit bestiality and incest, which some insist are essential for the sake of public health. If so, you are probably one of those intolerant, right-wing racist conspiracy theorists who believes other chiroptera-caca crazy things, like the myth that the national debt is a real problem. I hope you choke on your moral fiber.

Peace, love, and Mickey Finns, everybody!