May
28
Wormholes are common and frequently bring unsuspecting citizens of the 21st century into the 31st century. That’s why I’m here. Your friendly neighborhood guide to the future. My goal is to help you understand and be able to fit in with the futuristic society of the future.
Today’s Edition: Marriage in the Future!
In your time, marriage was a sacred institution between and a man and a woman. The definition of marriage was the following:
marriage: the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
In the year 2401 when gay marriage was legalized, the institution of marriage started down a path of disintegration that would never be the same again. The definition of marriage became the following:
marriage: the social institution under which two people establish their decision to live as husband and wife or husband and husband or wife and wife or girly husband and butch husband or femme wife and diesel wife or anything inbetween and anything inbetween by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, pagan ritual sacrifices, etc.
After the gays came the polygamists in the landmark case McElroy v. The State of Utah of 2478. The polygamists fought their case impeccably. Not only was it found unconstitutional to prohibit willful adults from entering into a marriage of three or more persons, but by this point in history a two income family was no longer able to sustain a household, hence marriages of three or more were encouraged. The definition of marriage became the following:
marriage: the social institution under which two or more slightly willing people establish their decision to live as any combination of husbands and wives regardless of how creepy or gay any of the members may appear by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, pagan ritual sacrifices, etc.
Next came the zoophiles in the case Forberg v. The State of Wyoming of 2503. Activist judges deemed it unconstitutional to prevent a man or woman from entering into a marriage with a person or animal. Rather than changing the definition of marriage again, the definition of people was changed to the following:
people: any organism capable of making sweet, sweet love, regardless of how unsanitary it may appear to the untrained eye.
You should have seen the celebratory parade that went through Cheyenne, Wyoming as thousands of zoophiles trotted with their loved ones to apply for their marriage licenses. It was magical! The singing — oh the singing! — was so joyous:
Old MacDonald had a farm,
E-I-E-I-O!
And on this farm he had a spouse,
E-I-E-I-O!
With a neigh neigh here,
Or a baa baa there,
Here an oink, there an oink,
Everywhere a wife wife!
What a disappointment it was when the animals didn’t have social security numbers or the ability to sign their names, making applying for marriage licenses impossible.
Finally came the pedophiles, however no case was ever brought to trial because everyone who tried was shot dead outside the courthouse. Apparently people don’t like pedophiles. Interesting.
By the year 3000 the institution of marriage was no longer in place solely for the reproduction of children. After nearly a 1,000 years of shooting men and women incapable of reproducing out of a canon into the sun, the sun became unstable, nearly forming a supernova, and it was decided that for the benefit of mankind, unfruitful men and women would remain on Earth where they would still serve some sort of purpose to society, like, as seesaw partners for fat kids or something.
In this more civilized time, the true meaning of marriage became evident: Love. We live a large portion of our lives searching for love, and until we find it, it’s like we’re searching for a piece of ourselves. Marriage is an institution in which we can celebrate this love. Now would be a good time to tell you that the definition of love was changed to the following:
love: the state of being where you are able to have sex with someone and still want to have breakfast with them the next morning, rather than just saying so the night before in order to get laid.
Go forth citizen of the future! Find love!

May 28th, 2008 at 6:37 am
That was……beautiful.
May 28th, 2008 at 7:26 am
And hysterical. The new Old MacDonald lyrics were awesome.
May 28th, 2008 at 8:55 am
I emailed a link to this post to my uncle to show him how Stupid his anti gay marriage arguments are. I can’t wait to see if he responds.
beautiful, hysterical, and brilliant!
May 28th, 2008 at 9:06 am
I meant “responds” to my email, don’t worry he’s backwards in his thinking but he would never post any mean comments here.
May 28th, 2008 at 9:08 am
Next Edition: Divorce in the future! :-/
May 28th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Ooh.. sorry Dave. Divorce was outlawed in 2401 when gay people got the right to marry. It was deemed to cause unconstitutional pain and suffering to the person(s) being divorced. Also, the Republicans wanted to make sure, if the gays were going to get married, that they really really meant it.
May 28th, 2008 at 10:46 am
I will know we have arrived as an enlightened society when it is mandated that all marriage vows for whoever gets to get married have to be renewed every ten years. These vows have to include a party and many bridal showers so that people get to periodically replace all the crap and tacky items they thought were so cool ten years ago.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Sue - Good idea! I think the bridesmaids’ dresses should still be as awful as they were 10 years ago though. We can’t let them outshine the bride!
May 28th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
My new life goal is to be a seesaw partner for fat kids. I want to give something back, you know?
May 28th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Not just their dresses Craig, but they should still have their 1998 hair.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Awww, has Puntabulous finally found Love?
May 28th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Burner: LOL!
Right. I’ve come to the point in my life where I start to notice people my age wearing wedding rings and I hate them.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
So all I have to do is live for another 1000 years and maybe then I’ll find love?
May 28th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Hey, Craig, you can have mine…
May 28th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
con·de·scend (kŏn’dĭ-sěnd’)
intr.v. con·de·scend·ed, con·de·scend·ing, con·de·scends
1. To descend to the level of one considered inferior; lower oneself.
2. To deal with people in a patronizingly superior manner.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Oh no! The word Etc. still exists a thousand years from now!
May 29th, 2008 at 4:59 am
After reading this, I am even sadder that you won’t be doing the Europe thing.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Love the part where a two-income family isn’t enough, but aren’t we rapidly approaching that now? It’s an outrage when one gallon of gas (and my tank takes premium) costs as much as my latte from Starbucks. Geesh.
What is Adam really trying to say with that?
May 31st, 2008 at 4:18 pm
CRAIG! This was brilliant. And probably exactly the way things will happen now that California (and Massachusetts)has gone and started this ball in motion.