Joseph Farah is at it again, arguing that marriage is not marriage unless a penis has conquered a vagina, because of that time-honored passage in Genesis when God saith to Adam, “Git ‘er done!” and his rod and staff did comfort Eve, therefore we shouldn’t give equality to gays and lesbians in our secular state unless they can explain exactly which vagina has been conquered by which penis, the end.

Think I’m oversimplifying it? Here, in the words of the 1970′s gay porn moustache, himself:

Can two men or two women shack up together and do what they want to do sexually? Yes, they can. And they have no doubt done that for thousands of years. But it has never before been labeled marriage. That would require a complete redefinition of a 6,000-year-old institution that forms the cornerstone of civilization.

To be fair, it’s already been redefined a bunch of times. For instance, in Old Testament Biblical marriages, the wife was mostly chattel, she could be one of many wives, and the marriage was more of a business transaction than anything. Of course, people like Joseph Farah miss the good old days when women were afforded a lesser status in marriage than men.

That’s why I oppose this very new social experiment.

From my perspective as a Bible-believing Christian, God authored marriage as a union of one man and one woman in Genesis. Jesus affirmed it in the gospels. That settles it for me. Because of these facts, I have no doubts about the grave ramifications of putting asunder what God ordained.

He plays so cute with the word “facts,” as if they’re “facts” to anyone but those who take, on pure faith, that the Bible is true.

However, I understand not everyone shares my convictions and worldview. I wish they did, but they don’t. So, I make the case for shared values on the basis of the rule of law, the will of the people, historical and legal precedents and the fact that social experiments of the kind now being proposed are likely to have grave unintended and unforeseen consequences.

Translation: “I try to take a comb through my arguments and remove all references to God, but in the end I look even dumber than usual.”

Until the proponents of “same-sex marriage” can explain how they consummate their so-called marriages, the legal argument against it is rather compelling.

Uh, to whom?

Please, Joseph Farah, stand in a court of law and explain to the “activist judge” [they're all activists now, you see -- it was the GOP's nefarious plan to appoint lots of conservative jurists to the bench, many of whom have a strong understanding of the Constitution, and suddenly, everything's super-gay] that the US Constitution explicitly states that a penis must conquer a vagina in order for it to be REAL CONSUMMATION.

Lest anyone think Joseph Farah has the slightest of points, the courts are already ahead him on this one, beckoning in legalese for him to learn to read words.  Let’s look at this, from Goodridge v. Dep’t of Public Health, 798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003), which many of you will recognize as the decision that legalized marriage equality in Massachusetts:

The judge in the Superior Court endorsed the first rationale, holding that “the state’s interest in regulating marriage is based on the traditional concept that marriage’s primary purpose is procreation.” This is incorrect. Our laws of civil marriage do not privilege procreative heterosexual intercourse between married people above every other form of adult intimacy and every other means of creating a family. General Laws c. 207 contains no requirement that the applicants for a marriage license attest to their ability or intention to conceive children by coitus. Fertility is not a condition of marriage, nor is it grounds for divorce. People who have never consummated their marriage, and never plan to, may be and stay married. See Franklin v. Franklin, 154 Mass. 515, 516 (1891) (“The consummation of a marriage by coition is not necessary to its validity”).  People who cannot stir from their deathbed may marry. See G.L. c. 207, § 28A. While it is certainly true that many, perhaps most, married couples have children together (assisted or unassisted), it is the exclusive and permanent commitment of the marriage partners to one another, not the begetting of children, that is the sine qua non of civil marriage.

To this, ACG at Submitted to a Candid World adds:

This isn’t a political or partisan conclusion: it’s an acknowledgment that no definition of marriage, if even slightly romanticized, requires the couple to have any intention of procreating.

The bait and switch Joseph Farah is pulling here is simple:  he’s taking the fact that divorces and annulments have been granted based on a lack of consummation, and asserting to his dimwitted readers that this, therefore, means that, again, Hulk Must Conquer Vagina! in order for a marriage to be valid.

Laws:  I do not think they mean what Joseph Farah thinks they mean.

But since Joseph Farah wants an answer as to how gay marriages are consummated, I’ll just revert to Jeremy Hooper’s response to Peter LaBarbera, back when Jeremy was getting married and Peter asked the same sophomoric question:

Anally and orally, with some hands likely involved as well. Oh, and it’ll be done frequently. Literally, like every chance we get. Breakfast — sex. Lunch — sex. Walk on the beach — sex (perhaps on the beach). Dinner — sex. Can’t sleep at night — sex. Wake up — sex (but only after requisite teeth brushing). On top, on bottom, on side. On pieces of furniture that had previously seemed like impossible places to make love. SEX. Hot, steamy, sweaty, bangfest. Just like most hetero couples on their own honeymoons.

Fun.

Yep, like that.

Lesbians probably do it differently.  But I imagine that they get it done just the same.