06 September, 2007

San Francisco Bans Marriage

SAN FRANCISCO, CA - First it was plastic shopping bags. Then is was plastic water bottles. Now it's marriage.

TBNN has learned that the City of San Francisco is planning to ban marriage as of January 1, 2008. The city council announced today that since the city's gay citizens cannot be legally married (at least according to national standards), then no one can be legally married. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) applauded the move, saying, "We, like the founding fathers of our country, believe that all Americans are created equal. Thus, all should be treated the same. If marriage is denied to some, then it should be denied to all."

San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom, who can be seen here marching in a gay-pride parade, pushed the city council to ban marriage. In speaking to the press today, Newsom said, "We desire that our country be tolerant and accepting of all lifestyles. What we really want is for anyone to be able to marry anyone else. In fact, I'm fine with a man marrying his dog, cat, tree, or piano. Even the bible tells us all to marry. Why can't we just be loving and accepting toward everyone? However, if we are going to discriminate against some of our people, then we have to discriminate against everyone. That's why no one can any longer be married."

Nancy Pelosi could not have been happier. She exclaimed, "Although I am married, I give full support to my home city's decision. If this means that I am no longer married, then that is just the sacrifice that my husband and I will have to make. Sometimes civil service requires great sacrifice."

All 28 heterosexual, legally married couples still residing in San Francisco are now faced with a difficult decision. Because the city will no longer recognize their marriages, they may have to move. At the very least, they won't any longer be able to rely on their spouse's medical insurance.

On the campaign trail in Iowa, Hillary Clinton said of San Francisco's decision, "When I'm in California, I'll champion this decision. When I'm here in Iowa, I'll condemn it."

Bill Clinton, on the other hand, responded, "Wow, that sounds like a great idea to me! Whoops, was my mike on when I said that? What I really meant was that it sounds like a good idea if most of the voters in that particular area think it is a good idea. Actually, it really depends on what the word 'great' means."

In New Hampshire, Barack Obama was asked what he thought of San Francisco's decision. Obama responded, "Let's not make this a race issue."

Back in San Francisco, Mayor Newsom is proposing a permanent solution to the problem. "Let's call on the U.S. congress to ban all marriage for all time in our country. Then this annoyance will just disappear."

The United Church of Christ (UCC) of Northern California released the following statement, "The UCC still likes the idea of marriage. We also agree with the mayor that any two objects who love each other should be allowed to get married. However, in light of the Nazi-like bigotry of the governments in Sacramento and Washington, we will no longer allow anyone to be married in our churches. Yes, it is a financial sacrifice on our part, but we will do it in the name of love, acceptance, and tolerance. Remember, the bible tells us that God is love."


DoGLover said...

You may be unaware of this, but several months ago Brad Pitt & Angelina Jolie announced their refusal to marry until all Americans could legally marry anyone (or anything?) they chose. I'm surprised the media hasn't made more of their statement. When I first read it, I felt the room close in around me as if a giant, cosmic hand had gripped my throat. It's tragic that most people don't realize that, at this very moment, the entire country is being held hostage by the sheer power of their wills.

jamesr said...

SanFranschizo might want to ban breathing, too.

What better way to stop the emissions of CO2? Come to think of it, if they stopped breathing, there would be less hot air and hence a significant aid to the dubious "problem" of global warming.

Darrin said...

I like the politicians' responses, and I didn't realize there were as many as 28 couples left in SF! ... Though the story is at this time fiction, I'm reminder of I Timothy 4 - "in the latter times ... forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats ..." They may already be covering the 'meat is bad' part, perhaps the 'marriage is bad' will soon follow.

Scott said...

jamesr ,

Your idea has some unforseen problems. While the cessation of breathing would realize a quick decline in CO2 emissions, the resultant spike in the death rate would present a huge global warming issue. The decay would cause nearly an expontential increase in greenhouse gases that would quickly overcome any gain from the previous sharp decline. Furthermore, since cremation would probably be the choice of dispostion of remains the added pollutants would add to problem. So, we would actually need them to keep breathing. Its better for the redwoods anyway.

jamesr said...


Well said.

Long live the trees! Without them, wouldn't there be a localized oxygen-deprivation problem?

Likewise, without trees, we'd have a shortage of nuts. (Walnuts, pecans, ... that is!)

I was initially thinking about the "Dihydrogen Monoxide" matter that I've heard rantings about, (www.dhmo.org) being among them. It's on the order of the "War of the Worlds" radio broadcast. Much ado about nothing, really.