Adjectives, Gay Marriage, and Companion Animals

“All dogs go to heaven; bill would let them in cemeteries, as well” (Rachel Weiner, Washington Post, Feb. 3, 2014) was a very enlightening article and not just for what it had to say about animals.

What I could never understand about the Republican approach to gay marriage was their argument that it somehow demeaned traditional marriage. In the first place traditional marriage isn’t what it used to be and hasn’t been for some time. I don’t think that comes as a shock to anyone—Liberal, Conservative or Leaning on the fence. But I don’t think we can blame gay marriage for this.

The gay in gay marriage is simply an adjective. We all get that gay marriage is between two men or two women and traditional marriage is between a man and a woman. Each of these marriages, if they are to mean anything will have to stand on their own merits, as has always been the case. And should any of these marriages fail, the parties have no one to blame but themselves. You can’t go off blaming someone else’s marriage for your failed one.

Still Conservatives like to ignore the gay in gay marriage and dwell on the marriage part. It’s as if the whole adjective thing is some left wing, Liberal conspiracy to destroy their world. But not anymore.

 Del. Israel O’Quinn—and I’m not sure if the name Israel deters or adds value to the traditional understanding of the surname O’Quinn or vice-versa. All I know is something is going on here that isn’t natural—but back to my point, Del. O’Quinn, Republican lawmaker from Virginia has just introduced a bill to allow pets to be buried in human cemeteries—something not currently allowed. No longer will cremated pet urns have to be clandestinely tucked in coffins.

Really? Clandestinely tucked into coffins? Thank God, pets can finally come out of the closet and rest in peace in their own caskets.

As the childless couple that chose to adopt doggie babies instead of human babies said so eloquently in this article, “Our dogs are our family. We’re all created equal by God.”

If only gays received the same consideration.

The delegate’s bill would subtly change the single word animal to the more acceptable phrase “companion animal.” Apparently this can be done without inflicting an harm on animals in general. Suddenly, it would seem, Conservatives do understand the important role adjectives play in the English language. Finally they appreciate that adjectives do make a difference. English teachers across the nation can at last breathe a sigh of relief, although they are probably still wondering why it took so long.

But while English teachers can now relax I see God’s job as getting even more complicated that it already was. For the last two thousand years mankind has been pitting one religion against another and more or less forcing God to pick sides—the assumption being that the winner was God’s choice.

When does it all become too much—even for an all-knowing, all-powerful God—having to constantly choose between one religion or another, gay marriage or straight, and now whether or not humans can take their pets to heaven with them. And how much responsibility does God accept for creating gays and straights, human and animals, and enough religions to keep arms manufacturers rolling in dough from here to Judgment Day—at which time, hopefully they’ll all be sent to the pet cemetery?

But the problems never cease. If pets can be buried in human cemeteries, why not wild animals that lead a good life. And what about the good pets who happen to belong to evil owners. What if Hitler had a Labrador retriever that was cute as a button and never bothered anyone? Would he have to go to Hell just because his owner died carrying a lot of baggage?

If only we could go back to the good old days—not the days when gays didn’t want to get married, or humans didn’t want to be buried with their pets or religions didn’t want to fight their way to heaven. I’m talking about the days when legislatures weren’t bogged down with ridiculous bills.