What about sluts?

In yet another example of government going where they needn't be, Rhode Island is now requiring cat owners to spay/neuter their pets or face fines. I'm surprised that there aren't more pressing issues for that government to tackle, but then again, it is some small liberal hamlet in New England that doesn't really have much to offer, other than less stray cats, I guess.

The state says the main reason is the costs of public animal shelters dealing with unwanted cats. But what about promiscuous women? I'd say it takes a lot more money to deal with an unwanted child than an unwanted cat, so maybe next we'll start requiring the sterilization of sluts!

Again?

"Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all."

--George W. Bush

Trying to defeat "gay marriage" once again, a phenomenon that has only happened in a handful of states so far, recognizing maybe, ten thousand marriages. A constitutional amendment on this issue is not needed. If some states want to recognize these unions for state tax and benefits purposes, that is their right as states. The federal government need not recognize it (currently the IRS does not), but why this "nuclear option." States effectively banned interracial marriage for a hundred years without wrecking the constitution. And what if this amendment is passed? Who really gains from this? I can tell you this, it is not going to remove gay people from the United States, nor make them any less vocal.

Do I need to point out that this issue only comes up during an election year?