"It does not affect your daily life very much if your neighbor marries a box turtle. But that does not mean it is right. ... Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife."
-- Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), advocating a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in a speech July 8, 2004, to the Heritage Foundation.
"In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be."
Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa), in an AP interview April 7, 2003.
OK. We get it, Republican Senators. You're obsessed with hatred for other human beings. You're obsessed with dividing the world into Us and Them. You're obsessed with animal fucking.
Well, guess what? You're looking more and more desperate as you try to justify your wholly unjustifiable opinions -- and you're actually making eloquent arguments for gay marriage in the process.
Where you sow hatred and division, gay marriage celebrates love and respect.
Where you paint mental pictures of man-on-animal sex, gay marriage celebrates the physical union between adult humans.
Do you REALLY see the whole box turtle argument as valid, Mr. Cornyn? Since box turtles can't declare vows or sign marriage licenses or stuff their little turtle friends in ugly bridesmaid dresses or even so much as demonstrate emotional or intellectual free will, this puerile little example you coughed up makes you look rather ignorant, don't you think? And it also kind of makes you look like a pervy little turtle fucker.
What's more, Mr. Cornyn, the current state of marriage mandates that "you must raise your children up in a world where the whimsical union of Britney Spears and some random childhood friend is on the same legal footing as man and wife." Which is more demeaning to the so-called sacred institution of marriage: ludicrously hypothetical man-and-box-turtle marriage or wholly legal and legitimate 55-hour heterosexual sham marriage?
And since -- deep in your cold, black heart -- you probably already know the answer to that question, where is the legislation you're writing that ensures impulsive marriages like Britney's don't continue to threaten and cheapen the already shaky institution of marriage? In fact, every real and measurable threat to the institution of marriage comes solely from heterosexuals, who are the only people currently allowed to marry. And these threats are both legion and caustically destructive: divorce, adultery, annulment, premarital sex, spouse abuse and the unquenchable demand for abortion that continues to polarize our nation.
Where is your legislation that criminalizes these actions as they relate to marriage?
Where is your sense of decency?
Where is your soul?