For that to make any sense, check out O'Neill's column in which he tries to figure out how a marriage protection amendment works. Apparently, one of the most memorable bits of testimony:
One of the more imaginative arguments in favor of the amendment was made by Randy Lee, a law professor at the Widener University School of Law. A 50-year-old father of six, Mr. Lee likened the idea of equating gay unions with marriages to an unfair trade practice.
“You can't put a picture of corn on a can of peas and sell it as corn,'' he said.
Sue Frietsche of the Women's Law Project also mentioned that analogy to me. It you stick with the analogy, though, gay marriage makes more sense — keep the peas with the peas and the corn with the corn. None of this succotash stuff to trick innocent children into eating their vegetables. Everyone knows kids sort mixed veggies out into little like minded piles anyway.
So what does it all mean? Well, since this is like my 19th post for the day (lots happening), I guess I'll Brian have the last word.
But there is something about the institution of marriage that people in love continue to value. That may be the only thing that unites everyone in this argument. If anyone can get past that irony, that's the good news.