Sunday, July 02, 2006

Hotdogs & Marriage

It seemed like a normal Saturday afternoon when Gus Costantalopolis set up his hotdog cart outside the Holy Church of St. Anythingoes. Like every Saturday at 2:30 PM, the wedding inside was almost over and a hundred hungry attendees were about to come storming out looking for something to tide them over until Dinner. And Gus was ready.

When they came out and the two Grooms had driven off in their limo, Gus started to serve up his tasty treats. But the sight of two men kissing passionately as they stood on the Church steps had unnerved Gus and he got confused.

To one customer he served two wieners and no bun. To the next he served two buns and no wiener. And so on. Soon, he was surrounded by a bevy of disgruntled people shouting and complaining. “Thith isthn’t a hot dog”, one very feminine man lisped. “Yes it is” said Gus. (He was a stubborn man and hated to admit when he was wrong.) “No it isn’t" shouted a hefty woman with a particularly dark six o’clock shadow who had been served two buns with no wiener.

“Yes it is.” Countered Gus. There was no backing down now, he thought to himself.

“Look”, said one particularly helpful man in a bright red evening gown and stilettos “a hot dog is comprised of two completely separate and distinct parts – a wiener which is meat – protein; and a bun which is bread – carbohydrate. Two wieners or two buns do not make a hotdog.”

“Why not?” said Gus. “If I say it’s a hotdog, who are you to tell me differently? Just because the word hotdog has always meant a wiener in a bun, doesn’t mean I can’t change the meaning to suit myself. It’s just a word. I say that two buns or two wieners is a HOTDOG!!”

“I agree with him” exclaimed a very short, stout man in a leather thong and dog collar. “I’m on the Atkins diet and I appreciate getting two weiners and no buns”.

“I bet you do” laughed the man holding his leash.

“ No, seriously” said the leashed man. “This is a matter of tolerance and personal rights and freedoms.” He held up the two weiners. “Who is anyone to say that this is not a hot dog. It satisfies my hunger and it’s served by a hotdog vendor. What more do we need? This is a hotdog, dammit, and I have no intention of tolerating any knuckle dragging, hotdogophobic bigot daring to tell me differently.”

“Hold on. Just one freakin’ minute here.” Shouted the father of one of the grooms. “You can’t just go around changing the meaning of words arbitrarily. A hotdog must have both a wiener AND a bun or it just isn’t a hotdog. Surely you can see that?” With this, he turned to Gus: “I want my money back.” he said. “I can’t waste any more time here. Can’t you see that we are celebrating a Marriage?”

Gus gave them all back their money, folded up shop and went home. Something in the back of his mind was bothering him, but he couldn’t quite put his finger on it.

4 Comments:

Blogger Linda said...

Brilliant.

11:12 PM  
Blogger J. T. Corey said...

Found your blog at Girl On The Right...excellent stuff. Nice work!

8:26 PM  
Blogger Orly said...

Is this a joke? It seems like it's just proof that hypothetical situations can only go so far before the the argument fails to apply to the actual issue being brought up.

1:27 PM  
Blogger Orly said...

You can use the weiner and buns as metaphors for wee-wees and hoo-hoos, if you think your marriage is only a valid union because you and your partner were born with the "right" genital accessories according to what you personally desire or what someone else has taught you, but why not look at the wiener and bun as symbols of two souls coming together in harmony through love? Isn't that more important? What are you actually defending when you try to protect the word marriage from being corrupted from those vile homos who want to make it actually stand for something worthy like love? What does your marriage actually means to you? Is it all about sex or is it something more?

Never mind the "separate but equal" argument.. Do you realize how much bureaucratic legal work would have to be done to actually grant couples in civil unions the same rights and benefits as married couples? It's infinitely easier to just expand the current legal definition of marriage.

1:59 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home