Here comes the bride...and boy, is she a dog! |
by Anne Morse |
Chuck talked the other day about the aggressive efforts by animal rights activists to blur the distinction between humans and animals. He describes a "wedding" between a canine groom (who sports a formal black tux) and a doggie bride, who wears a gorgeous white silk gown and veil designed by Vera Wang. (Okay, I made up the part about Vera Wang.)
Incredibly, there are even wedding coordinators who specialize in pet "weddings," which make a mockery of the sacred meaning of marriage.
One thing driving this kind of nonsense is, I believe, the phenomenon P.D. James discusses in her novel that I mentioned recently, The Children of Men. When people are unable to have children, cats and dogs and dolls become their de facto offspring. I believe a big part of the trend of treating pets like children may have to do with a lack in people's lives of other humans to love, and be loved by. (This article offers support for this notion.) I speak from experience: As soon as our sons left for college, our miniature dachshund became our "baby."
By the way--the "Reverend" Arlene Ponack, who presided over the wedding, is as phony as the marriage ceremony. She was "ordained" through the Universal Brotherhood Movement, which sells ordinations to anybody who mails them $95. This ordination allows recipients to make money performing weddings, "bark" mitzvahs, baptisms, funerals, and other religious ceremonies. So--while too many Christians ARE getting sucked into this way of thinking, at least we're not crazy enough--yet--to preside over "weddings" between pets who have no idea they've been living in sin.
(Image © Naples Daily News)
Are you saying I am wrong to enjoy my friday night poker with the pack?
http://unpopulartruths.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/dogs-playing-poker.jpg
Posted by: Steve | March 14, 2008 at 12:29 PM
Eh, I dunno about them making a mockery of the sacred meaning of marriage. I mean I guess they do but so do we, with our 50% divorce rate...
Posted by: Matt | March 14, 2008 at 01:05 PM
Actually I think it's kind of cute.
But if dogs can have a Bar Mitzvah, do they have to be circumsized on the eighth day, keep the Sabbath, or refrain from meat that does not divide the hoof or chew the cud, any carnivorous fowl, and any seafood without fins or scales, or refrain from blood?
Posted by: Jason Taylor | March 14, 2008 at 01:34 PM
God has put things in order, so we should want to be like him and do the same thing. Read Genesis.
Posted by: Pat | March 14, 2008 at 02:11 PM
After the divorce, who'll get custody of the puppies?
They **SOLD** the puppies?!??!?
Posted by: LeeQuod | March 14, 2008 at 03:44 PM
LeeQuod,
I have long suspected that the true sinister force behind gay marriage was the family law bar. Who stands more to profit? Could this be their next untapped market?
Posted by: Steve | March 14, 2008 at 04:05 PM
I thought the same, Steve, but you must admit you're hardly an unbiased observer; physicians are to attorneys as cats are to dogs. (Isn't that a syllogism question on the MCAT? And note, it's not the MDOG.)
Posted by: LeeQuod | March 14, 2008 at 06:57 PM
Au contraire, physicians consider attorneys extremely useful - as research subjects. Compared to rats, the lab technicians do not get as emotionally attached, and you can get attorneys to do things a rat would never consider doing.
YUK YUK. Sorry if everyone's heard that a thousand times. It will never cease to amuse me ;)
Posted by: Steve | March 15, 2008 at 09:33 AM