A beautiful take on the whole issue of gay marriage, from a comment left on the website for the 2012 California Marriage Protection Act:
I fully support your righteous cause. Please consider supporting mine as well.
Please support my petition to change the Constitution to define pet ownership as only the relationship between people and cats. I have a cat and I feel that the fact that other people have dogs that they consider to be pets diminishes the relationship I have with my cat. The Bible supports this: in Phil 3:2 and Rev 22:15, dogs are coupled with evil-workers, sorcerers, etc. In Mt 7:6 we read: “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast your pearls before the swine.” See also 1 Sam 17:43, 1 Sam 24:14, 2 Sam 9:8, 2 Ki 8:13, 1 Ki 14:11; 16:4; 21:19,23 and Job 30:1. Cats, on the other hand, are holy creatures, sitting with impunity on the images of heathen gods (Baruch 6:22). Obviously, for the safety of our families and our way of life, our laws should reflect this moral truth and reserve the title of “pet” for cats alone.
In case you didn’t realize it, this is irony on top of irony. The “2012 California Marriage Protection Act” is an initiative to make divorce illegal in California, the idea being that if it was so important to “protect” marriage (by making gay marriage illegal) then we should really protect marriage by getting rid of the number one destroyer of marriage: divorce.
6 Comments
My cat, Bob, has a pet dog that protects him from other dogs and keeps stray cats out of his yard. Would it be acceptable to call the dog Bob’s pet?
While I love these responses, and believe the “equal protection” clause should be enforced, the petition in question is to outlaw divorce in California.
Ha! That is excellent.
My dog is my pet. I am my cat’s human.
So it’s OK to call my dog my best friend….as long as my cat remains just my pet and they never get married?
drivel
You have it mixed up. Dogs drivel, not cats. 🙂