See what you think of the report below:

SAN FRANCISCO - The San Francisco board of supervisors unanimously passed legislation Monday that officially recognizes gay, lesbian and unmarried heterosexual couples by offering them certificates similar to a marriage license.

San Francisco thus joins three other California cities in officially acknowledging the legitimacy of people who live together outside the bonds of a traditional marriage. The city may accord so-called "domestic partners" employed by the city with health benefits traditionally reserved for husband and wife.

The health measure will be decided after study by a mayoral task force.

"San Francisco is doing something cities all around the country are going to emulate," said Supervisor Harry Britt, an acknowledged homosexual and author of both measures.

Under the ordinance approved Monday, unmarried couples will be able to obtain a certificate officially recognizing their relationship by publicly filing a declaration of domestic partnership with the city clerk's office or privately with a notary public ("Gay Couples Accepted," Commercial Appeal, May 23, 1989, p. A2).

Comments

Mr. Britt might have a fit, but I wonder what of those whose "alternate life style" includes a sexual relationship with an animal? Why are they being ignored, or, worse yet, discriminated against? A "gay" with a way with a goat could use a certificate "similar to a marriage license. " In this manner, overly-persnickety landlords and sexist zoning ordinances (you know the type - those that prohibit animals from certain neighborhoods) could be circumvented.

Now, please, I do not want any letters from you animal lovers out there telling me that a goat cannot be forced to cohabit with a gay. I am fully aware that goats have their pride and that there are limits to their level of dignity, but gays are not bound by such restrictive, culturally imposed systems which we have received from our puritanical, Judeo-Christian heritage. So, the goat will have to go along with the times. After all, it is almost time for the "Gay" nineties again. I am not trying to get anyone's goat with these remarks. That would be ba-a-a-ad, and I will not do it by the hair of my chinny chin chin.

Health problems? Odor? Not to worry, the goat can stand it every bit as good as the gay. When was the last time you heard a goat complain about gay odor? See? There is no health problem. Cities could unite in "officially acknowledging the legitimacy (Now, there is a word to ponder.) of people (and animals) who live together outside the bonds of a traditional marriage." Further, "The city may accord socalled 'domestic partners' employed by the city with health benefits traditionally reserved for husband and wife." All sick goats should receive "study by a mayoral task force," I always say.

No goat, though, should be given health care benefits if it (the said goat) does not possess "a certificate officially recognizing their relationship by publicly filing a declaration of domestic (that eliminates wild goats) partnership with the city clerk's office or privately with a notary public." (Should either the goat or the gay eat the afore-mentioned certificate, the process must be duly repeated before a justice of the peace.) An unlicensed goat should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Our welfare system is rife with fraud, so only certified goats need apply for health benefits. All other goats must butt out.

As replusive and repugnant as a gay-goat liason is (especially to goats), how would Mr. Britt deny gays and goats "equal protection under the law"? Upon what basis could he refuse them? Citing laws or moral codes will have no effect (especially on a. gay). The American Criminal Liberties Union (ACLU) could take this to the Supreme Court. Mr. Britt, Jesse Jackson and Ted Kennedy could lead a Goats Right Coalition parade across the Golden Gate Bridge. They should walk across the bride, but if they drive, under no circumstances should Senator Kennedy be allowed to drive across, given his past history with bridges. Besides, a,goat's life is sacred, except, of course, when a goat has an abortion. Then it is merely the excising of unwanted cells growing as a mass. (This does not apply to eagles or to other animals on the endangered species list.)

Comments on Capital Punishment

Objections are raised every time capital punishment is carried out. "What if you execute the wrong man?" That is a distinct possibility. It is more than sad when it happens, but if executing the wrong man does away with capital punishment, does imprisoning the wrong man do away with jail terms? Sorrowfully, some men have spent most of their lives in jail for crimes they did not commit. Should we, then, do away with jail terms because the wrong man might be unjustly incarcerated?

Capital punishment is called "legalized murder." "Legalized murder" is a liberal's term for capital punishment. A liberal likes the expression except when it is applied to abortion. Then he calls it a "loaded, prejudical" description. He prefers "pro-choice" for legalized baby murder. Well, executing murderers is my choice, so I guess I am "pro-choice" when it comes to executing them. But back to "legalized murder."

If capital punishment is "legalized murder" and should, therefore, be outlawed, is a jail term "legalized kidnapping" which should also be outlawed? Think about it. I cannot kill a killer. I must let the state take care of him. If the state executes him, it is "legalized murder," i.e., it is as though one had unlawfully killed a killer. Alright, then, I cannot restrain or restrict a bank robber and confine him to a cell in my basement. I must let the state take care of him. If the state puts him in jail, is it "legalized kidnapping"? If not, why not? The argument that forbids capital punishment because it is "legalized murder," should also forbid a jail sentence because it is "legalized kidnaping," holding a person against his will.

If a person illegally trespasses on my property, I cannot extort money from him, but the state can make the trespasser pay a fine. If I do it, I am extorting money from the trespasser. Well, if the state does it, if the state makes the trespasser pay a fine, is that "legalized extortion"? Should, therefore, all fines be outlawed? If capital punishment is to be banned because it qualifies as legalized murder, should all fines be banned because they are "legalized extortion"? (Do not forget, too, that the "wrong man" may be fined on occasion.)

What do we have here - no executions, no jail terms, no fines. Of course, such a policy would put a number of Wall street traders, congressmen and Chicago aldermen back on the street - with money. It is too late, though, for Ted Bundy. We just were not enlightened enough to let him continue his "alternative life style" of murdering young women. We fined him (legalized extortion). We jailed him (legalized kidnaping). We executed him (legalized murder). Boy, somebody ought to have to answer for violating his criminal liberties!

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 15, pp. 458-459
August 3, 1989