When David Cameron put forward legislation to legalise same sex marriage, he can not have imagined the full implications of this new law. Or, to put it another, more Ukip-ian way: the PM made a big mistake when he rammed gay marriage down our throats.
It caused rain to fall from the sky in vast amounts, particularly on Somerset, which must be VERY GAY INDEED to have incurred such Godly wrath. It fell somewhat less so on Soho in London, which either means that Divine Retribution needs Its aim sharpened, or It has never witnessed the debauchery of Old Compton Street on a Saturday night.
The ruination of all that decent society holds dear has also caused straight men to demand "unnatural love" from their good lady wives, according to an actual real life professor who teaches at the University of Texas. Professor Jeremy Hooper has also found, using strict scientific principles, that heterosexual men will now follow the gay way and require that their relationships be open. They will want the shag they can have between meals without ruining their appetite for marriage.
Men can "require" that all they want, but they may find that all their clothes have been cut into small pieces and scattered on the front lawn when they return. They do say that if you don't ask, you don't get, but sometimes it might be better to just keep your requests to yourself.
The most important way in which gay marriage has affected society is by violating our precious legal system.
When a man loves a woman, the man is the husband, the woman is the wife, and Percy Sledge has a hit record.
When a man loves a man, are they both husbands or is the one who does the washing up the wife? Or does it change depending on who is doing the driving, or who smells the nicest? And what if one of them is the King of England at the time?
This constitutional conundrum is one that the full bewigged and gowned, totally un-gay legal profession is considering. The full majesty of the law is being bent to rule on whether A queen can become THE queen.
It is all about equality - if a woman were to marry the future King, she would become our Queen. The rabid right have got their gussets in a twist because, under the new laws, it has been suggested that a man marrying a future gay King could be the Queen.
It does not matter that it seems a vanishingly small possibility, nor that gay men do not particularity wish to be called queens, it is enough that it remains plausible to get the why-can't-things-be-like-they-used-to-be crowd all hot under the collar.
They also want to protect the good names of Earls and Dukes. No man will be a Duchess if he marries a Duke. They actually want that written into law. Furthermore, no woman shall be a Count if she gets wedded to a Countess and under no circumstances will a man married to Lord be a Lady.
Who thinks this stuff up? Where are they from - the 1970s? It's as though they are all living in the sitcom Till Death Us Do Part. If you aren't old enough to have cringed at it when it was on TV, look it up on the World Wide Wait, and be astonished at what used to pass for family entertainment.
It was superficially a pastiche of a bigot, but its appeal lay equally in what the bigot said chiming with the beliefs of the audience. Those beliefs have not gone away, it is just less polite to announce them in company.
Various mongers of doom have latched on to this minor and somewhat preposterous alteration to the wording of ancient laws to proclaim that they told us so, and that gay marriage has come to wreak disaster upon their own marriages, our legal system and society in general.
They should take heart. Not everything changes. The Treason Act of 1351 maintains that is high treason to "violate the King's companion". Hands off my royal bird, in '70s layman's speak.
An official spokesperson has confirmed that this will remain true, but not if the King's companion is a man. How reassuringly sexist is that?