Veiled threats. (Unplugged).

On May 15, 2002, six members of the House of Representatives introduced a proposed constitutional amendment that says marriage "shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman." Don't throw your rice pudding at me until I finish telling you why I'm all for this prenuptial agreement. Hint: my "We Don't Want Your Stinkin' Marriage" campaign never caught on.

Why this proposed amendment now, you might ask? Or you might not, depending on your level of distraction from unspecified warnings of possible attacks, or possible warnings of unspecified attacks. My Google search engine, usually so chipper and self-congratulatory, seems to be at orange "Apocalypse Pretty Soon" threat level and is "preparing to work at an alternate site." For some reason, it won't cough up the info I seek, but I bet those six House members need some fast campaign cash.

The lead sponsor of the measure, Representative Ronnie Shows, Democrat of Mississippi, says that the amendment is necessary to protect the sanctity of marriage and that "the overwhelming consensus among Americans is that we must not allow the institution of marriage to be degraded."

As if!

As if heterosexuals all by themselves were not completely capable of degrading marriage through divorce, pricey annulments, child abuse, domestic violence. Straight people have been doing the aerial bombing of marriage for quite some time. Now gay people are the robots sent in to do the hand-to-hand combat and mop up operations in the Canna caves?

As if homosexuals were that powerful. Although, come to think of it, we have been recently credited with the destruction of the U.S. Catholic Church through bouts of "ecclesiastic flamboyance." Sidebar: You just wish sometimes that the Church protected children as much as it protects fetuses.

Add to our degradation of same-old-sex marriage the devastation of the military, and it should become clear to someone--hullo, Donald Rumsfeld--that we are an underused weapon of mass destruction. We're a veritable Triple Crown: The Priestness, The Breeder's Cup, The Kandahar Derby.

Discussions of the amendment are dryly juridical, all full faith and credit, state's rights, and federalist principles. Georgia Republican Bob Barr, who sponsored the Defense of Marriage Act, said the amendment goes too far because it violates the principle of states' rights. Bob Barr accusing someone of going too far! Fire up those Giggle Search engines! Ari Fleischer said, "All I know is that it's already the law of the land, signed by Bill Clinton. The President supports the law of the land in this case." (In other cases, he pretty much does whatever he wants, Ari did not add.)

Christopher Andres of the ACLU, perhaps succumbing to the hyperbolic atmosphere of our time (see tortured "Canna cave" reference above), called the proposed amendment "the legal equivalent of a nuclear bomb." Others have called it "the American Gothic Amendment," bringing to mind either the famous farm couple or the Cheneys' last Christmas card.

To me it's Anita Bryant, but bigger. It's Lane Bryant. Anita's "Save the Children" campaign, which always sounded like a set-aside program, mobilized a whole generation of gay activists. But in a narrow way. We've become too comfortably single-issued to get riled up about the renewal of the end-of-welfare-as-we-know-it law, which would punish the poor while rewarding heterosexual marriage. We barely paid attention, past the grudging posthumous salutes to gay heroes of September 11, to the denial of benefit claims to surviving gay and unmarried straight partners. We think the priestly marriage issue is separate from us. We are bought off, bought in, assimilated, living ma vida en rose loca in white, affluent, gay-ted communities with our very own gay cable channels.

The last thing we need is another fight about gay marriage, but bring it on! Anything to get people engaged. As for me, I prefer to live in sin.

Kate "Just Unmarried" Clinton is a humorist.