A ban against same sex marriage was overturned Thursday by a California court in — where else — San Francisco. Personally I think the same sex marriage ban is problematic. I think legislators would have better luck with a ban against “no sex” marriage. If you get married you have to have sex. It’s the law.

As to the same sex situation, I don’t think the legislators or the court has gone far enough.

Same sex Boys

Same sex Girls

A fairly rational argument against same sex marriage can be found on the slippery slope, i.e., if we change marriage to mean the joining of two men or two women, why not a woman and a horse, or a man and a donkey?

Slippery slopey speaking, the argument is a logical one. If the man/woman marriage model is the default, allowing two men or two women to marry would change the default. In this case it’s to appease the growing social and political clout of homosexuals. If you change marriage for them, the reasoning goes, who’s to say we won’t be pressured into changing it for people who want to love their animals in the biblical sense and give them health benefits and power of attorney?

Will not marry

While the logic works, the reality is too absurd to take seriously. Even die-hard evangelicals don’t think marriage would be extended to include animals, except maybe those snake handlers in Georgia.

A more realistic development will be the a movement to allow marriage of a man, woman and nanny. Many modern couples are pursuing high-powered careers while still insisting on being parents. Nannys and au pairs are an integral part of these family units. Why not make it legal? Once these well paid couples organize, they will form a substantial (and wealthy) political constituency with enough power to affect legislation.

Good nanny

Marrying the nanny is cost effective. It eliminates the expense of a decent salary for a regular Nanny Nancy, as well as having to fork over those pesky social security taxes socially conscious do-gooders like Al Franken avoid so they can afford expensive wines and pay through the nose for organic food. Sure, they have to feed the nanny spouse, but couples generally feed the nanny anyway, once the scraps are assembled after dinner.

Great nanny

The man/woman/nanny marriage arrangement is a win-win situation all around. Incorporating these often nubile nannys into the marriage contract should satisfy the roving sexual eye of husbands AND wives (the nanny could be male), lessening the possibility of divorce. The children are spared a messy break-up with the inevitable custody battles and the parents get laid more. It makes sense for all those liberal-minded couples pushing same-sex marriage on everyone else’s sensibilities. Here’s a chance to dive into the new-marriage pool and make a social statement.

Since these sophisticated couples won’t need a nanny until they have a kid, the basic wedding ceremony needs to be adjusted to accommodate these marriage add-ons, maybe a procedure called Marriage With Modifications. There’d first be the happy ceremony with man and woman, parents and friends, and then the Supplementary Ceremony. An entirely new ritual would be developed, from wedding showers to church wedding to honeymoon to reality show.

Not so good nannys

Getting the right nanny is, of course, is the key. She or he would have to be good with children and have nice breasts. Both parents would have to like her. There would be the initial interview, then a short dating period followed by consensual sex. Then, both parents propose and off we go. Sometimes a nanny could come recommended by another couple, who aren’t yet ready for a total commitment.

The nanny could not have a career, of course, being relegated to the home and the raising of the parents’ child. It’s possible that the troika itself procreates as the nanny becomes pregnant with the man’s child. This only serves to solidify the family unit.

Once the nanny is included as a marriage partner, efforts can proceed to add a personal trainer into the mix.