Though displaying implacable collective bigotry, each protester was found to be refreshingly open-minded when questioned. “Oh, it’s not that I’m canine-phobic,” assured a rosy-cheeked Betty Greene, casually waving a God hates dags sign, “I just think the traditional definition of marriage shouldn’t be tinkered with. You know, traditionally marriage is between a dog and his cat. It’s important. For tradition.” Added Mrs. Greene, “and I just found the sign, it’s not mine.”
Indeed, rather than a phalanx of vitriolic bigots with dozens of prejudicial posters, each belonging to someone else, these protesters are better seen simply as concerned, outspoken individuals. In their own way, each is a thoroughly caring person. “Oh, of course I agree same-species couples should have the same rights,” explained bank manager Jeff Scott, “they just shouldn’t be allowed to marry. ‘Cause, you know, if a same-species couple I don’t know marries, then somehow, that makes my own loveless marriage mean less.”
Mr. Scott also deflected criticism that their campaign was burning money that could have been better spent elsewhere. “Wasting money? Absolutely not. It’s very subjective. You see, preventing dogs from marrying each other is one of the most important goals of my life.” In addition, many of the people featuring in their expensive television ads were happy to wok for free, such is the threat of same-species marriage.
Some protesters offered other reasons for opposing homospecial marriage. “Dogs marrying dogs just isn’t within the traditional definition of ‘marriage’. Oh, we covered that already? Hmm, well how about this: dogs can’t have puppies with each other. Oh, they can? I still think we should recognize the traditional definition of marriage.”
Several more fundamentalist protesters have opined that, in any case, this particular sexual relationship is completely unnatural and unheard of in the animal kingdom, outside of penguins, several species of monkeys, apes, humans, elephants, dolphins, lions, sheep, 1,490 other species, and dogs themselves.
“We just need to recognize that ‘marriage’ traditionally means a union between a dog and a cat, or even historically a dog and several cats. There’s no mention in the Bib – er, history books – of dog-on-dog, or doggie style bonding. It’s tradition, and we should respect that,” concluded Mrs. Greene. “Oh, I’m sorry, I have to go home. My husband needs his dinner cooking.”