Opponents of gay marriage claim that if it is legalized it would only be a matter of time before marriage between humans and animals will become legal. Of course it would. Good heavens, if a person in in a stable relationship with their cat, why shouldn’t it be sanctified by the sacrament of marriage, though getting a cat to walk up the aisle could be problematic.
The sticky problem is what to do about marriages between humans and vegetables or mineral. If a man is in a deep relationship with his pet rock does it not follow that this too should be sanctified? Or if a man is suddenly smitten by the rutabaga on his plate, should it not follow that this is a union crying out for a deeper bond?
Though, I will admit that the rutabaga does raise some sticky theological questions. Rocks tend to be stable creatures. Their structure does not change, so a long-term union is possible.
The question is how to sustain a long-term relationship with a rotting vegetable. You could vacuum seal it and freeze it, but that would force man and rutabaga to live in a constant state of estrangement.
Another possible solution would be to encase it in amber. However, this brings up another thorny question. A sacrament is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace, but if the spirit is dead, is it still a sacrament? By the same token, a life is an outward and visible sign an inward and cellular vitality. Just as we may ask if a marriage still a sacrament if the celebrant and couple are simply going through the motions, so we may ask if a life is still a life when the outward physical attributes masks an inward cellular mortality.
If we affirm that the physical appearance is the sole determinant of life, then we are forced to consider the viability of a stable relationship between an individual and a corpse. Have we been treating necrophilia unfairly over the centuries? Can a man and his corpse sustain a lasting marriage over time. Is a marriage between man and urn possible?
And, what happens if a developer declares his love for a national park and asks for its hand in marriage. People marry for money, why shouldn’t they marry for undeveloped land. After marriage, the developer , being the good husband that he is, would shower her with condos and shopping malls.
This, in turn, leads to a possible solution to the Afghan war. Instead of raining Hellfire missiles down on wedding parties, the United States should simply propose marriage. As a pledge of our troth, we would drape our beloved country with a bejeweled oil pipeline. Why spend all that money conquering a country when you can marry it instead?
The possibilities are endless.