Extrapolating on the DeVore Principle: Where will we draw the line on marriage? Dogs?? FIRE HYDRANTS???

I have long considered former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum (pictured at right with his broken-hearted family after his 2006 defeat) to be both a prophet and martyr in the cause of protecting heterosexual marriage from the frothing, snapping, insatiable gay lobby. For his bold forthrightness in comparing homosexual relations to “man-on-dog sex” he was excoriated, ridiculed, defeated overwhelmingly, and for his troubles had his last name re-defined by the gay-blogo-fascist elite so that whenever you Google it, the second entry you come across is “the frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex.” (Google Santorum yourself if you don’t believe me.)

I get down on my knees each night and pray that such a cruel fate never befalls our heroic Irvine assemblyman Chuck DeVore for his bold, uncompromising warnings that allowing gay marriage to remain legal will lead inexorably to legalized incest, polygamy, necrophilia and bestiality – warnings he has tirelessly repeated on his own blog and letters, in numerous comments at the Liberal OC, and in person to my co-blogger and estranged college friend Vern Nelson.  (Can you imagine what fun the sodomites would have with his name: “Mmm… DeVore me, you beast!”  “I enjoy walks on the beach, light S&M, and I am not exactly a ‘top’ or ‘bottom’ but more of a ‘DeVore.”  “Six of us stayed late, drank a little more, and eventually ended up in the DeVore Position.” The heart grows sick.)

Mr. DeVore’s contentions have proved controversial, with some elitist know-it-alls protesting that a child, animal, or dead body is not legally competent to enter into a contract such as marriage, but I prefer to put my trust in the judgment and expertise of Mr. DeVore, an army veteran, aide to President Reagan, and the author of a best-selling novel in Taiwan.  And once that slippery slope is broached – adults marrying children, humans marrying animals – really, where will it stop?  Where do we draw the line, when that levee is breached?  On what ground do we have to stand, morally and legally, telling an animal it can not marry, let’s say, an object that it loves?  My mind constantly returns to the nightmare scenario of A DOG MARRYING A FIRE HYDRANT.

I mean we all know how much dogs love fire hydrants.  And it seems to me the legalistic hurdles this puts in the way of the brave firefighters who work so hard to defend our lives and property are, if not insurmountable, then unnecessarily burdensome.  I have not been able to get a straight answer on this question from any of the groups of firefighters I have visited (although the looks on their faces when I pose the question suggests extreme consternation) but all the legal experts I know – BOTH of them – affirm that the ramifications would be, at best, imponderable.  Picture an apartment building, possibly yours or mine, up in flames, and it being necessary to track down the canine spouse of the only convenient hydrant to obtain permission for “engagement.”  Bear in mind how unpredictable “man’s best friend” is – at any given moment a dog could be at home or in any number of places – and the fire spreading as jurisdictional disputes are hammered out between fire department and humane society.  For God’s sake, and for the sake of our infrastructure, VOTE YES ON 8! The fate of civilization is in your hands.

About Phobius