PART I: I didn't read Robin's comment; however, I did read Ellen's comment. Both of these women have a dog in the fight. Thus their personal/sexual interests make their opinions bias. Since Ellen knows the power of a story, let's cite a story: Both Ellen and Robin own female dogs. Both Ellen and Robin have decided to allow their female dogs to get marry. Prior to the marriage, the Supreme Court of Canine World issued a ruling that same-sex canines, regardless of their breeds, has the legal right to marry. If Robin and Ellen’s dogs do not adopt puppies; their dogs, after copulating, will eventually die out.

PART II: Conversely, I have a dog. It is my intentions to allow my dog to mate with its biological opposite. That is, my female dog will breed with a male dog. Provided my dog and the biological opposite are allowed to mate, and if there are no reproductive problems, my female dog will become pregnant. The outcome is that my dog's lineage and the male dog’s lineage will naturally reproduce. In the canine world, that form of female and male mating is a natural reproductive process. My puppies were conceived naturally; therefore, the Constitution of the Canine World has provided legal provisions for my naturally conceived puppies. As for Ellen and Robin’s two same-sex dogs, barring any outside form of artificial insemination or male/female surrogacy, there will be no puppies conceived from the copulation between their two same-sex dogs.

PART III: Ellen likes parables but this “Cupcakes and Puppy Dog” story must come to an end.

LACK OF CONSTITUTIONAL MERIT: The Founding Fathers could not envision a legal theory to provide for an eventuality that was not intellectually and biologically conceivable. Consequently, the Constitutional Rights that Robin and Ellen insist they are entitled stems from their private sexual choices and not from intellect or biology. The Supreme Court, ruling beyond its powers, has ruled that same-sex couples have the same rights and benefits of marriage as afforded to heterosexual couples. But no court in the world can convert a man into a woman and then expect biologically born women to joyfully share their most intimate excrement and hygienic moments.

FINAL THOUGHTS: No, I am afraid that the two same-sex dogs that freely entered into the legal fight have misjudged the general public. The truth is most people really don't care about the two same-sex dogs living together and attempting to copulate or copulating as married heterosexual couples do. But people do care about forfeiting their natural rights (as enunciated in the Declaration of Independence, legalized in the Fourteenth Amendment and further articulated through a series of Civil Rights Acts) for the complete acceptance of the unnatural rights that are proposed by the LGBT community. On this point, Ellen and Robin, both are wrong. No human can give either one of them what Nature did not provide. As for Bruce and his boycott of North Carolina, he has already had his 15 seconds of fame.

More by this Author

  • Strong Men

    Donald Trump is afraid to attack Michelle Obama but maybe the First Lady needs to reevaluate some of the implications of her rhetoric. Does she not know that Trump stands in good company?

  • Great Legal Feats

    This is only a minor bump on the road to success.

  • The Constitution And The Bathroom

    Provided that sanity is one's center of operation; what sane individual desires to knowingly share their most private moments (bathroom and shower usage) with an individual who does not ....


No comments yet.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.

    Click to Rate This Article