The $2,330.45 Solution

Our current President, George W. (The W is for “Wottanidiot”) Bush, has a dilemma. He’s the champion of the conservative right, also known as the closed-minded, short-sighted people who are afraid of the future and think God and Jesus really ought to be running the government but, in their/His absence, let’s do it ourselves. This powerful, or at least extremely noisy, group of people are currently on a tear about defending marriage. I’m sure you’ve already heard about this at your local Starbuck’s, just everyone is up in arms about the fact that marriage in America is under so much pressure and scrutiny and, dog gone it, trouble because it is being attacked at its foundations by the ‘mos.
His dilemma is that he needs to pretend, by word at least if not by deed, that he’s not so far gone down the road of religious knee-jerking (and, yes, I know that’s a horrible mixed metaphor but if you’re like me, the image of Falwell, Buchanan et al wandering down a dirt road with their knees jerking is one to savor) that he does not realize that actually committing himself to a Constitutional Amendment that would, by and large, legalize discrimination makes him out to be a figure closer to Josef Stalin than Joe Sixpack. Say what you will about the “average American,” but when push comes to shove the majority is not going to stand up in righteous indignation to force a group of people into a closet over something like marriage.
At least, I have to cling to that illusion or move to France. (Because of the cheese.)

His latest folly in the thinly-veiled attempt to skirt the issue is a US$1.5 billion promotion of marriage plan wherein he’d outfit an army of Christian soldiers to march into low-income housing projects and tell the good heterosexual men and women there just how hunky dory married life can be. This, you see, promotes marriage among the hets without actually saying publicly that the fags have no business being legally wed.
But I have another proposition for Mr. Bush that I think would be vastly more successful and also help yours truly out immensely.
Pay us not to get hitched.

Dear Mr. Bush,
I understand that you are under some pressure to defend marriage from the homosexual onslaught of evil, sin and debauchery in order for this great country of ours not to be pulled into the pit of hell once Judgement Day occurs, plus it would be nice to have more constituents to send to war and a straight marriage is more likely to result in progeny (that means children (that means kids)) than one between two men.
Two women, on the other hand kind of screw up that calculation so let’s ignore that bump in the road and move on somewhat blindly and with closed minds—a situation that I know you will find most comfortable.
Recently, you have bowed to the desires of some of your most vocal supporters and proposed a rather large endowment (no pun intended) for the support of heterosexual marriage among the poor, whom you apparently believe are more disinterested in ceremonial rites than those of your financial standing. Considering the cost of getting married, I suppose I will not contest your point. (That means “You may be right.”)
But I think this solution does not go far enough to solve your problem with the, shall we say, more God-fearing of your supporters. They want nothing less than a Constitutional Amendment stating that marriage is only and forever a union between a man and a woman, which, I hope you will agree, is a rather narrow view of human nature and is a first step to creating a state that believe discrimination can, in some cases, be legal. First steps are scary in this regard (that means “way”) since second steps tend to inflate the definition.
My solution is, dare I say, both logical and elegant. Rather than spend $1.5 billion dollars educating straight couples who might be inclined to be legally wed anyway, why not send direct payments to every homosexual in the United States on the promise that we shall not marry another of our own sex?
The population of the United States is currently around 292.5 million. Taking the “10% rule” into account, that means that there are currently 29.25 million homosexuals.
Now you and I both know that many homosexuals, for reasons of their own which I’m sure have absolutely nothing to do with your administration’s support of discrimination, intolerance and ignorance, choose to remain closeted (that means “in the closet”) and, for the sake of argument, let’s agree that 50% of the homosexual population would deny their homosexuality. This reduces the practical number to 14.375 million practicing (that means “doing it until you get it right”) homosexuals.
A simple calculation shows that taking that $1.5billion and distributing among the 14.375 million homosexuals would provide each with a $104.35 defense of marriage stipend (that means “bribe”).
$104.35 doesn’t sound like much, I’m sure, but it is, after all, more than I received from your last tax cut and look how powerful that was! Still, I would guess that quite a few of those 29.25 million homos would want a smidge more than that to forego the everlasting bliss that wedded life affords.
A tiny bit of investigation on the Internet told me that it’s costing the U.S. government $5.46 billion per month to keep that pesky war in Iraq going. Now, you and I both know how important that war is! But what’s really more important, Mr. Bush, keeping Iraq&#151a country millions of miles away from the United States—in a constant state of war, or the preservation of the human species via procreation in the holy state of matrimony? The thought of allowing two men to lie together in their marriage bed legally is surely the bigger nightmare scenario (that means “thingie”).
Therefore, I propose cutting the cost of the Iraq war in half and moving those funds toward protecting marriage from heathens like myself. That adds another $32.76 billion dollars annually (that means “every year”) to the Marriage Protection Budget, or the Defense of Marriage Stipend, effectively increasing the homo payout to $2,330.45 for every openly gay American citizen!
And who could say no to that?
I hope you will consider the logic of my proposition and immediately issue checks to all homosexuals in the amount of $2,330.45. Think of the wedding presents we could purchase for our straight friends’ lawful marriages! It’s surely the best win-win proposal you’re likely to hear this year.
Lance E. Arthur

If you’re not lucky enough to be gay and have this money to look forward to, I wouldn’t worry too much. I hear that the President has proposed even more tax cuts because, I guess, the country is in such great shape financially that the Treasury is just glutted with extra cash and they really need to offload it somewhere.
It’s weird, though, that we have so much money lying around. I mean, I keep hearing about some deficit or something, but I’m not really very economically minded so I just have to trust that Mr. Bush knows what he’s doing.
I mean, look how great that whole Iraq thing worked out.

Total Cost of the War in Iraq

(JavaScript Error)


And what would I want to get married for, anyway? Frankly, I think I’m extremely lucky not to even have the opportunity to be joined to the man I love, and show the world that I never want to be parted from him, and to live with him, two as one. I appreciate that my government and the people of this land believe my entry into wedded bliss will signal the end of humanity.
Although it is rather a heavy burden to bear.
Particularly alone.
Postscript: For those of you of the homosexual persuasion worried that promising that you won’t get married for a virtual pittance legally binds you to fulfilling your promise, I’d like you to peruse Mr. Bush’s line of broken promises to the American people. All of them, gay and straight. And then wring your hands about the things you “promise” the government.

January 26, 2004

Comments are closed.