When gay marraige was making headlines four years ago, some opponents suggested that gay marriage would justify humans marrying animals. So it was only a matter of time before the nonsense started again following yesterday’s California ruling striking down a ban on gay marriage.

 
In my inbox today was a press release with a subject line that read:

Courts Rule That Ramadan Shall Last Only 20 Days (re: Courts Rewriting Marriage Definition)

Naturally, I wasn’t sure what gay marriage had to do with Ramadan, so I decided to open the message. (Let this be a lesson to PR types: nonsensical or provocative subject lines can grab readers’ attention.) Here’s what it said: 

Courts Rule That Ramadan Shall Last Only 20 Days

·        The court has taken it upon themselves to interpret a covenant relationship that God ordained in two major religions and redefine the act of marriage according to today’s cultural standards

·        Why stop there? Why not force Muslims to cut short their practice of Ramadan because it is unequal protection for local restaurant owners. The court can prove that there is a compelling state interest to cut it short because it can be proven that a 40-day fast hurts the economy.

"Unequal protection for local restaurant owners"? That’s the best argument this person could come up with as to why the state would tinker with Ramadan next? Clearly, the person who wrote this is a. not an attorney (at least not one I’d want defending me) and b. never took a logic class.

Laura Nathan-Garner