THE MOUSE D'OUEVRES, MARTHA, STATES' RIGHTS SAY
Van Nuys, CA, March 17, 2004: As reported in "The New York Times" today, how we
view the issue of gay marriage rights goes back to how we have
viewed interracial marriage in America. In essence, if a
couple wants to go for same sex marriage, as long as their state
doesn't get hissy fits
over the practice, the law can be interpreted
to mean they are free to join paws. And, the union should be
recognized in any other state as long as it's OK with that state.
However, according to legal scholars quoted in the article, the
Administration's fears are unfounded; a Constitutional amendment is not really
necessary, even for those only wanting heterosexual muttrimonials.
If a state dislikes the same sex idea, it doesn't have to recognize
the union. This was the same for interracial marriages, until the
Supreme Court did away with all bans on them in 1967.
With the potential
for same sex marriages to get back on track, given this news, we
contacted couples who had e-mailed to let us know they had
reluctantly put their NIPtuals on hold.
In a telephone
interview today, Harriet Plover and Phyllis Kelly of Philadelphia
meowed in unison, "We have not been able to stop purring since
we read 'The Times' this morning!" Having now reinstated plans for
their own NIPtual ceremony this June, they reported their tails are
in the full upright position, and they are inviting all the cats in
their lives to join in the feline-tivities. Mouse d'oeuvres will be
served along with tuna treats, and we are sure all will have a
How do you feel about
the news from legal beagles? Speak out!
Get behind the laws
of our great nation!
Sign the FUPPPS
FUPPPS Editorial Board