Do All You Can

The following letter is to be read by local leaders to their Fob congregations today, Sunday, June 29, 2008:

Dear Friends of Ben,

It has come to our attention that throughout the United States activists are fighting to corrupt traditional marriage and in doing so attacking the very fabric of our society. Today we ask you to do all you can to fight back, to ensure that the only legitimate definition of marriage is our definition, because it is a well-known fact that two different definitions of the same thing cannot coexist in the same country, or the entire universe will implode. It is for this reason that we ask you to set aside your ability to think for yourselves so you can campaign for the following political cause that we decree as just and holy.

As you know, in the recent past activist judges have legitimized so-called same-haircolor "marriages." This is unacceptable. The Book of Ben chapter 3 verse 19 clearly states that "he who lieth with another of the same hair color in the way that a dark-haired man lieth with a light-haired woman has sinned, and must be stoned to death." Now modern-day fobby scripture has revealed to us that the Book of Ben chapters 1 through 10 are no longer the Word of Ben, which is why we no longer stone sinners to death (well, mostly just because it's illegal, but we're working on that; see next week's official letter to be read in Fob congregations), but we know that the first part of that verse is still true. We know this because we have an icky feeling inside whenever we see dark-haired people kissing other dark-haired people. (Light-haired people kissing light-haired people, on the other hand, kind of turns us on--being dark-haired people ourselves, and thus righteously attracted to light-haired people--but we know this is very very very wicked and must be condemned publicly.)

Furthermore, we know that children deserve to be raised by one dark-haired parent and one light-haired parent. This is the way Ben intended it to be, and we know that because that's how it was on Leave it to Beaver. Children raised by two dark-haired parents or two light-haired parents will grow up to be either serial killers or cross-dressers, and really is there much difference between the two? Yes, we know that scientific research does not support this theory, but that's just because all scientists are pro-same-haircolor activists. Whatever you do, don't listen to them.

Now, some people have a problem with constitutional amendments that define marriage as between a dark-haired person and a light-haired person because these amendments are based on doctrines of the Fob religion, which apparently not every person in America believes in (yet). To these people we say Poo on you. Nah nah nah nah nah nah, we're not listening. Perhaps the founding fathers of our great nation (and the founding fathers of each state thereof) neglected to mention in their constitution(s) that marriage should only be between a dark-haired person and a light-haired person, but this was clearly an oversight. They didn't mention it not because they didn't intend it, but because they forgot to. We know this because we've rewritten history so that all founding fathers were believing Fobs, or would have been if they'd had a chance. We're giving them that chance now, by rewriting our nation's constitutions.

To our friends who have already slipped through the cracks of our country's legal system and have "married" people of the same haircolor and started "families" before we could make such an act unconstitutional, rest assured that this is all for your own good. Your "marriages" aren't real marriages and your "families" aren't real families anyway. If you had legal rights to your children, you would only use them to encourage them to be serial killers or cross-dressers (or both) anyway. You don't really want that, do you? Don't answer that. We don't want to know.

To our fellow Fobs who are same-haircolor-attracted but don't act on it, please know that we love you and think about you a lot--at least every time we have to fight for another constitutional amendment ensuring that you never ever marry each other. We know that you must live lonely lives while in this mortal existence, especially now that we've told you that you should no longer ignore your desires and marry an opposite-haircolored person, lest that marriage fail and you blame us for it (sorry to those of you who got married before we changed our mind on this one). So long as you never ever ever ever so much as think about kissing someone of your same haircolor, let alone "marrying" them, you'll live a tolerable life here, and we're pretty sure you'll be happy after you die. If you fail, you will be miserable for all eternity, but rest assured that Ben loves you anyway.

Signed with love and righteous affection,

Mr. Fob

To the 2%

Tonight FoxyJ sent me the link to this feature on religion in the United States in USA Today. Besides being a fascinating survey of religious beliefs and demography, and on top of that a wicked cool interface, the feature was well-timed for me in that Foxy sent it while I was stewing over this article I read tonight about the LDS Church, once again, telling its members to vote for anti-family legislation disguised in pro-family rhetoric. Seeing via USA Today that Mormons make up only 2% of California's population helped me put things in perspective and calm down a bit. I'm still angry that people feel that denying basic rights to families who don't fit an ideal invented in the 1950s is somehow Christlike or even humane, but at least the impact of this particular instance is limited by demography.

As for the small portion of that 2% of Californians who are Mormon who happen to read my blog, as well as any other Californians who may have a say in the anti-family constitutional amendment that the LDS Church believes so strongly should be passed, even if I believed I had the kind of power to make people do whatever I say, I wouldn't tell you to vote or campaign against this proposed amendment based solely on the fact that I say so. Rather, I ask only that you carefully study the facts before making any decisions, which is exactly what the LDS Church tells its members to do in situations not involving gay people marrying each other.

Gay people will couple up and raise children whether or not they're allowed to legally marry. The only thing denying them marriage rights accomplishes is to severely limit their ability to give their partners and their children the legal protections they deserve. My friend Scot, who is planning on legally marrying his husband of thirteen years (also the father of his two sons) next month, has put together articles on the statistical effects of same-sex unions, arguments for marriage equality, and the "ideal family" argument against same-sex marriage.

Common Sense Wins in the California Supreme Court

(at least for the moment)


This makes me happy to be moving to California. Really, I don't see how anyone could see a same-sex marriage ban as constitutional in any context.