Unnatural Marriage?

Turnabout is fair play: what’s good for the gays…

Proposals to ban gay marriage — on grounds of “unlawful wedlock” — don’t go far enough.

Proponents of the ban contend that homosexuals must be forbidden to marry because such unions have no potential for procreation.

It therefore follows that heterosexuals past childbearing age, or otherwise sterile, should be forbidden to marry.

In all these years of contention, not one of the grandiloquent opponents of gay marriage has extrapolated the proscription to heterosexual marriage.

Certainly, such august minds could not have failed to conceive of the obvious.

Could it be that they are loath to incense their constituents?

Consider the contingent of single senior voters. If widowed or divorced, some would surely want the option to remarry.

What to do with voters vasectomized, tubal-tied, and otherwise post/past-parenthood? Must their marriages be annulled?

How about voters planning weddings without parenthood?

Nix on their nuptials; nix on their votes.

Let’s keep it simple.

Forget about banning marriage, gay or otherwise.

For those appalled by the prospect of pairs of brides and grooms, be assured: you, too, will be permitted to marry per your preference.