It’s a decision with apocalyptic slippery slopes and unspecified subsequent laws that all lead to a tarnation of hell-fire.

Y’all probably know that I’m jawin’ bout the plebiscite you have when you’re not havin’ a plebiscite – a bit like a marketing survey to see whether you use Persil or Rinso: the survey as to whether “marriage” should be allowed to divorcees.

Now brethren, the scriptures are quite clear on this. “What God hath joined together let no man put asunder” it says in Mark 10:9, which makes it as plain as a woodpecker’s red hair that God invented marriage and calls dibs on just how it’s gonna work and woe-betide any of us what starts jimmying around the edges of it.

The same Gospel goes on a tad more in verses 11 and 12 which discuss any man who “puts away his wife” or any woman who “puts away her husband”.

Now, that there is an old Hebrew way of saying “divorce”; it don’t mean put them away like you’d put away your turnips and taters in the cold cellar – although I ain’t ruling out that some folks might have done it that way anyhow – it means when folks declare their marriage to be over.

And what does old Mark say about those sorts of folk if they want to re-marry?

Why, he says straight out, the man “committeth adultery” and the woman “committeth adultery” if they remarry. The “th” they liked to stick on the ends of words in them days is because those old Hebrews generally had quite a gap, like a missing picket in the front fence, twixt their top two front teeth – it’s still popular and considered quite fetchin’ in Palestine today – and thus had a problem with their “ss” sounds.

So divorce is just fine until y’all get a notion to re-marry, because that just ain’t the goods at all! Imagine if the “Yes” vote becomes law and good religious folk are forced (by law!) to conduct marriage services, bake cakes and go barn-raisin’ for adulterers!

It’s an erosion of our freedom of religion, freedom of speech and probably that free fifth cup of java at Micky D’s to boot!

Those were the paragraphs, by the way, that get excited with a barrel of exclamation points – just in case you was waiting for ‘em.

Not only that, but what about the children of remarried divorcees?

A child needs one ma and one pa, not two of one and one or two of t’other – whole passels of research show that these sorts of children grow up as miserable as a mule with no ears.

And what about schools?

I’m reckoning that teachers can look forward to being told that they ain’t allowed to say parent, mother nor father no more.

It’ll all have to be “step” this and “step” that in case they offend and embarrass some of the children – “Now, to go on the excursion children, y’all need to get your mother or step-mother and your father or step-father – that is, both parents or one parent and one step parent, to sign at the bottom of the form.”

And that’s not all – just think of all the other laws that’ll need changing: making it so as any illegitimates conceived in the new adulterous union have equal inheritance rights as clean, pure offspring, for one!

If divorcees start getting’ rehitched, it will redefine God’s invention.

That right there is the slippery slope to Communism that this here divorcee-marriage plebiscite hangs over all our heads: remember, it’s okay to vote to put the pleb back into plebiscite.