I stumbled across a blog this week, by a Protestant pastor, called Blog and Mablog. I don't know much about the fellow, and I haven't found anything on the blog that would make me sorry to link it via a post.
What caught my eye--and what I want to share with you--is his proposed follow-up on the move to redefine marriage:
Liberals like uppity women in theory, on their bumper stickers, but detest them in real life. So here is a proposal for a couple of genuinely uppity women (who need to be sisters) living in a state that allows for same sex mirage.
They need to get themselves down to the county courthouse and apply for a marriage license, letting the fact that they are sisters be known to the clerk.
When they are denied, as they will be, they need to ask why.
Because that would be incest, the reply will come. Their response should be two-fold.
First, they should say, if we were going to be incestuous, why would that be any business of the state? Since we as a culture have abandoned the moral arguments, the reply would have to be pragmatic — because of the possibility of birth defects.
To which, the sisters should raise their eyebrows and inquire into how it is that a lesbian relationship could result in birth defects.
After they have flummoxed the clerk in this way, the second part of their response should be to reassure that longsuffering personage, to make up for their first line of argument. They should go on to assure the clerk that they are not lesbians at all, there is absolutely nothing sexual or romantic about their relationship at all. There would be no incest.
“We are just sisters. And we want to be married.”
But marriage has to be sexual, the clerk would reply.
Does it? they would answer.
Well, yes, traditionally . . .
Traditionally? Like we care about that anymore?
Pastor Wilson goes on to recall Saul Alinsky, the infamous author of Rules for Radicals, who proposed--as a political strategy--making ones opponent live up to his own rules, especially when that will be impossible.