Sensation ! Bush-Blair same-sex marriage in Windsor !!
As thousands of men and women registered their same-sex partnerships today in Britain, a discreet ceremony took place in the royal borough of Windsor. George W. Bush and Anthony Blair sealed their partnership during an intimate ceremony at an undisclosed castle in the Windsor region, a ceremony that was chaired by Russian president Vladimir Putin.
“It is not my cup of tea”, Putin said. “Homosexuals are unknown in Russia. All genuine Russians make love to women, either male or female”, the Russian president declared after the ceremony.
“As I said, last year, at the European Union, everybody is free to use his penis as he or she likes, but we keep the right to cut a little bit deeper, when they ask us for a circumcision”, the former NKVD official said, grinning.
We were able to report this stunning historical event, as we happened to be strolling through the countryside where, some thousand years ago, the Doomesday Book was accepted by the English king, thus giving birth to the first genuine democracy, covering a whole country.
Best man to Mr. Bush was, of course, a woman: Condoleezza Rice, who, assisted by Ms. Miers, who had done the shopping, threw the traditional handfuls of rice over the young couple at their exit from the ceremonial room.
President Bush "...another sacrifice for the American people..."
John McLellan, the presidential spokesman, had another hard time to shake off the many questions, White House correspondents raised at this occasion: “The President did not break any American law in marrying, in a second marriage, the British Prime Minister”, he insisted. “And, if he did, it was based upon the presidential prerogative, to break any law that may hinder American independence and safety.”
“He made another big sacrifice for America!”, McLellan concluded, refusing to answer any more questions on this thorny subject. It is true, that the British-American alliance is vital to the Iraq efforts of this Administration. From McLellan’s words, and more so, from Washington officials who declined to be named, we can infer, that it was Blair in the first place, who embarked President Bush in this risky consecration of the transatlantic partnership, and that it was certainly not the other way around.
Religious leaders, when consulted, were stunned in disbelief and refused to comment. President Bush surely risks to lose their support for his policies, a support that was already heavily thwarted at the occasion of the Miers candidacy for the Supreme Court.
Vice-president Cheney, acting president for the duration of the honeymoon, refused also to comment, although your correspondent could hear him fighting his disgust and feelings of betrayal, when he said: “Who am I to judge the President’s choices? He is serving a vital interest of the United States of America. This is a vital presidency. Or not?” When we agreed, Mr. Cheney continued: “When I accept the choices of my own daughter, who am I, to deny the same choices to Mr. Bush, who isn’t even my son?” (“Although he behaves so”, we thought to hear him add to that.)
Bill Kristol: "...my mother is not amused..."Mr William Kristol, Editor in Chief of the neoconservative Weekly Standard, known for its allegiance to American family standards, reminded us of the executive privileges of the president. “We do not know yet, but we are confident, that President Bush did this for the American people and that he has a plain right to do so. Sometimes, laws, even our dearest laws, have to be broken in the interest of America and its mission in the world. Only the President can do so. And he did. This may upset many of our believing friends. I understand that. And I do not recommend to all American men to follow this example. Our President is someone special. Always has been. He has a mission that leads him on roads, a common being cannot follow. Without putting the two on the same level, I humbly remind you of Jesus Christ, who went out in the night in order to stroll around in the orchards with his dearest pupil, leaving his disciples behind.”
I guess, that this unusually candid statement by an important political observatory in Washington, will guide our religious leaders to issuing a wise comment on this unexpected decision of our president.
Meanwhile, British reactions to this unique event (we have to return to Alexander the Great, at the end of the fourth century before Christ, in order to observe similar officialised same-sex unions on a statesmen’s level) are less embarrassed than the American ones. “The Dutch have male and lesbian homosexual couples since more than three years”, commented Professor Wastecruick, an eminent psychosocioligist from Oxford University today. “Why should we, with our venerable and firmly established gay tradition, based upon our sexually separated boarding school system, stay behind the Dutch, whose homosexuals are mainly closet-confined uneducated bastards, as we intend to lead the European Union?” And he added: “Even if this is the only significant renewal, New Labour will have brought to Britain (and it is), it makes up, for me and my friends, to more than ten years in the desert. Now, really, New Labour has become what Neoconservatism should have been!”
Laura Bush and Cherie Blair could not be reached for comment. In both cases, in the US as well as in the UK, bigamy is not allowed. Cherie, who is an attorney, is not expected to accept the new situation. She is known for her commitment to women’s rights.
Finally, at the moment we were to close this post, their common statement hit the news agencies. “Neither of us has been consulted about this decision of our husbands. Although both of us, if asked for our opinion, would have rejected severely this moral and ethic transgression by our spouses, we are confident, knowing intimately our husbands’ frigidity, that no serious harm will come from this outrageous sidestep to our children and families.”
Tony Blair: "...knowing intimately our husbands' frigidity..."
