If you think the title seems a bit over the top then you haven't been watching the city of West Hollywood over the last decade. In a city that considers itself cutting edge in regards to pet rights they are about to complete the hat trick of absurdity by banning the practice of selling most animals in pet stores.
This new ordinance really has no teeth since nobody is stupid enough to open a pet store in a city that since 2003 has considered animals "companions" instead of owners. They were also the first city to ban de-clawing cats. Apparently slicing the jewels off a male cat is still humane but when it comes to the claws you need to make an appointment at the nail salon down the street.
As the proud "owner" of two pets that I purchased from like minded animal lovers, I object to the assertion that a city would try to make animals equal to humans. If I were to take a survey of the West Hollywood City Council I am confident that most of them are pro-abortion. Match this with their belief that removing claws from an animal under anesthetic is cruel; it puts things in perspective doesn't it? Then again these are the same people that think they are advancing gay acceptance by holding a pride parade that puts on display every negative stereotype about homosexuals with a follow up performance on Halloween.
I think we can all agree that cruelty to animals is wrong but animals are not people and should not be elevated in status to a point that complicates our legal system. Animals deserve humane treatment but not the rights to run for elected office, get married, buy a car or obtain a fire arms permit. If that all sounds like absurdity then who draws the line? If in fact one cannot own a pet then they are autonomous with the right to emancipation from their "guardian."
![A woman who fell in love with a snake has married the reptile at a traditional Hindu wedding celebrated by 2,000 guests in India's eastern state of Orissa. [AFP]](http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2006-06/04/xin_37060304085942614291.jpg "A woman who fell in love with a snake has married the reptile at a traditional Hindu wedding celebrated by 2,000 guests in India's eastern state of Orissa. [AFP]")
It also could be argued that the bond between a person and a pet is co-dependent. Since by law sex is not a required element of human marital relations then why couldn't someone marry their "companion?" No country acknowledges such weddings by law but in 2006 a woman in India fell in love with and married a snake in a traditional Hindu ceremony with 2000 guests. That claim has been made by millions of American women for years though they were using a different definition but who is to say?
Since the general consensus about what "common sense" means has been parsed by those on the social left, I have a feeling that we will look back on the Proposition 8 debate and say with a sigh, boy those were the good old days.
Stay Sharp!
STORY: West Hollywood expected to ban retail sales of dogs and cats
RELATED: Charmed Woman Marries Cobra in India
