Tuesday, February 24, 2004

The bottom line on banning gay marriage 

You can't ban gay marriage because there is NO FEDERAL DEFINITION of a "man" or a "woman."

Think about it. I heard this from a transgendered woman on the Mike Malloy show, and nowhere else. It's just too hot of a topic for most mainstream news outlets, too crazy-sounding, too counter-intuitive for too many folks. But it's the truth.

We have no definition of "man" or "woman", and there really can't be one. Why?

DNA should be the final arbiter--right? Wrong. Many "men" have no Y chromosome; many "women" have a Y chromosome. The men look "fem", and the women look "butch". The DNA test is not infallible.

If you have a penis, you're a man, right? Opposite if you have a vagina, right?

Then where do the transgendered fit in? Who is what? Aren't they, finally, whatever they WANT to be?

Ask their doctors. They'll tell you. Yes, they are whatever they choose, in the transgendered world. Sure, some say they were born a man in a woman's body, etc, but it's their choice to be one or the other--or BOTH.

Same thing with the true-life hermaphrodites, with BOTH sets of organs. Man? Woman? Both? Where do they fit in the Federal definition of "man" and "woman"?

They don't. They have a lawsuit just waiting to wreck the pipe dreams of Mr. and Mrs. Normal American Christian. Tuff titty for them.

There is no definition. Even if they pass a Constitutional amendment, there can't be a definition without a Constitutional crisis--between this never-gonna-get-it Musgrave amendment and the FOURTEENTH.


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com