The People vs Tiger Woods

Your honor, counsel is now prepared to question the People in the case for Crucifying Mr. Woods.

(the People are sworn in)

How and when did you first come to know of a Mr. Tiger Woods?

I see. You say in relationship to the Sport named as Golf. From what source did you obtain this information?

The Media? Would you say you feel you know Mr. Woods, better than, say your neighbor three doors in any direction from your home?

Are you personally aware, of either that neighbor’s or Mr. Woods intimate relationships?

You submit, you know both are married.

Would you say that the Media is a reliable source for what happens in Mr. Wood’s or your neighbors sexual relationships? Rephrase. Is the Media present in either person’s bedrooms?

Objection! Your honor please advise the witness to answer questions without giving long opinions, or speechifying.

Thank  you.

I will respond to your statement. Larry Craig is irrelevant as a precedent, due to the fact of the prevalence of homophobia in this country. He is an elected official, whose job is to make rules. has Mr. Woods ever directly influenced or directed such rules, in any way that has effected you personally?

I thought not.

Next question. What is it that offends you about Mr. Woods behaviour?

Define skank.

Ok, it is your opinion that having multiple sexual partners while under the legal stance of “marriage” is the definition of “skank” and that you see his behaviour as immoral.

Lets start with a legal definition of Marriage. “Marriage is a social union or legal contract between individuals that creates kinship.” Do you agree with that definition?

Oh. So, so you claim traditionally that definition means that a man and a woman agree to only have sexual relations with one another. Would that be the Mormon tradition of which you speak? Or the Old Testament, under which men could have many wives and concubines?

Common acceptance, you say? Again I ask, where these mores of behaviour come from.

Now we are getting somewhere. Christianity. Do you believe in the Separation of Church and State?

Thank you. I do as well.

Your honor again, I ask you to direct the witness not to be allowed to bully pulpit about lying, cheating nor hypocrisy, and answer only the questions.

Recall the neighbor of whom we spoke earlier. Are you aware of whether or not that marriage exists under the “moral” guidelines you have laid out as culturally formed by Christianity.

Why not?

I see. So do you feel that Mr. Woods exceptional talent at the Sporting Game of Golf gives you Carte Blanche into his private affairs?

Should he be held to a higher standard?

Role model for the Children? And in role model, I assume you mean he should further the Christian-identity of sexuality. Under that standard, should openly Gay people be allowed to teach in schools?

I object!

The witness has conflated that one set of Christian teaching is valid, and the other is not. Do you, or do you not believe the Bible literally?

Ok. Nor do I. Yet, you still feel that the Biblical restraints on human sexuality and marriage be upheld as standard in the United States, after claiming to believe in the separation of Church and State?

So, you are free to hold to your personal belief of how that relationship is defined, and by your standard he has failed in Your view of Marriage?

So. Is there in place, in our legal system, an apparatus for dissolving such a Contract as Marriage should one party not uphold that contract to the other party’s satisfaction?

Ah yes. Divorce.

Do you know any divorced people?

Have they been fired from their jobs for being divorced?

No? So, I ask you… what in the world does Mr. Woods behaviour have to do with HIS JOB in the Game of Golf?

I rest my case.

(man we are one obsessed with panties country! get over it people!)