Flibbertigibbet is Just a Funny Word

Bush is pushing a constitutional amendment that will define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Bush has, also, stated that this will not prevent the “civil union” of a same-sex couple, Vermont-style.
So, in other words, there will be no marriage, i.e. religious ceremonial-type thing, but there can be civil unification, i.e. governmental paperwork-type thing.
Really, what this amendment would do is disallow any priest who may be so willing to perform matrimonial rites upon a homosexual couple from choosing to do so (and you know there are Universalists out there who would, considering the ease of ordainment).
But, if they want the convenient status of being married (it’s not a cheaper legal state of being, by no means – it’s just easier, in the long run), they just trot to City Hall and do the Justice of the Peace dance.
This would be a Constitutional amendment made solely to regulate a religious practice.
I could rant a long time about this.
I could. But, do I need to?
Let me just say this much:
Every vote for Bush in 2004 is a vote for the brutal mutiliation of very furry, innocent, helpless, blind, newborn puppies.
Think about that.
Adios.