If a triangle can have four sides and a circle can be square, then I guess red can be the new green and black can be called white. If these things were possible, then I guess two men living together and two women living together can be considered a marriage.

Two women can engage and call it sex, and two men can give birth to a baby. It must be, if this post-modern society with its radical relativism is right.

A hammer can be used to “saw” wood into pieces, and a screw driver can twist a nail into wood. Many things can be ingeniously created by antics with semantics.

A man feels like a woman and dresses like a woman, then he has become a woman. Who are we to say he is still a man? A woman envies male dominance and becomes male by signing an affidavit to stipulate she is he. She/he surgically acquires a certain bodily appendage and, thus, impregnates her. More interesting is if she was herself once a he. Now when he becomes she, medical science is obliged to accommodate, but it’s a little more difficult this time.

So, now, it has become linguistically and physiologically possible to change sex without changing gender and change gender without changing sex.

If two men can marry and two women can marry, then we are obliged to extend and apply this same principle to ensure equal opportunity. Two women? Alright: mother and daughter become husband and wife. And two men? Of course: father and son become wife and husband.

There’s no end to what can be achieved by this line of reasoning. A man and two women can be married. So can a woman and two men. Why not two men and six women?

So, then, can first cousins marry and give birth to any number of mutants. (That’s yet another law that will need to be abrogated.) If first cousins may now marry, then so may brothers and sisters.

Now, of course so to reorder humanity and restructure society will take re-education and social engineering. But we must do what we must do. Beginning in kindergarten, these things must be carefully explained to children.

It isn’t just the students about whom we need to worry. There are those teachers who still harbor personal convictions about these things. If we can’t scare them about certification and retirement, we can eventually get the staffs we need by requirements for graduation in state teacher schools.

Parents are also a problem, and we need to be realistic about them. I don’t think we really need to worry, even though they vote on school funding and board members. Once we get the kids straight (if you’ll excuse the expression), we can work on the parents through the kids.

There will, of course, be preachers who just won’t get it and will preach sermons that express their church’s theological position to which they have taken vows or otherwise subscribed. The “separation of church and state” — about which much has been made — admittedly becomes awkward and inconvenient. But just wait until the churches lose their tax exempt status. Then listen to them change their tune.

Ridiculous, all this? Nonsense? Both, but anything can become possible. And that’s precisely the point. The language is nonsense and the concepts are ridiculous. What might happen is up for grabs.

Enough of satire. Same-sex marriage just is not marriage and no law should be attempted that would claim to make it so.

Yet, two candidates for Minnesota governor favor establishing domestic partner status for homosexuals. Only one opposes it.

The same two who favor domestic partnership for homosexuals go further and propose same-sex marriage. If the partnership should be enacted but marriage fails, the partnership would be but a stepping stone toward same-sex marriage.

Only one candidate does not, and he is the same who opposes the intermediary step of partnership. He not only opposes a law that would legalize these things but favors a law that would prohibit them.

Now, this is an opinion piece. Far be it from me to tell you for whom to vote for governor. I won’t even tell you his name or party. You can recognize this and then vote by your own convictions.