Well, Iraq aside, there’s one burning issue that’s sweeping the nation, the nation being most accurately defined as whatever I happen to be thinking, since I’m a member of the godforsaken media. That issue is who will play third base for the Cleveland Indians, and rather than even consider that agonizingly painful issue, I’ll talk about something less frightening — blatant oppression.

Now unless something has happened between my deadline and this going to press (trust me, things always happen in that interim), we are on the verge of war. Furthermore, our country shares several similarities with Iraq: we both possess weapons of mass destruction, we both have recently had nearly unanimous elections and both countries consider supporting gay rights to be an offense roughly equivalent to child molestation.

However, that may be our downfall. So gather around, Ralph Reed, Pat Robertson, Jesse Helms, decaying corpse of Strom Thurmond and the like, because it’s time to teach you a lesson in being a conservative. You will have to grant a lot of rights to homosexuals, but trust me when I say that it’s all in the name of rabid conservatism.

First, the whole marriage issue needs to be considered. What’s the big deal with gay marriage? In a few years, we’ll be lucky if anyone stays married long enough to get divorced. So homosexuals want to get married, go ahead and let them. Anyone who makes it more than five years, gay or straight, is gonna be locked in a zoo in a few years. (“Look Billy! It’s the domesticated spouses … you know they can’t breed much in captivity.”) Frankly, as conservatives, you want small government, which I learned meant fascism, since by definition one dictator is as small as it gets. But nonetheless, the bureaucracy will definitely be on the wane once gay marriage gets instituted as a policy, because the government will just ignore marriage altogether. Or, alternatively, it would give them an opportunity to crack down on homosexuals now because some of them may commit adultery, which is still against the law in most states, rather than sodomy, which is not.

The military issue has to be considered. Bill Clinton chickened out, basically instituting a policy that was already present and declaring it to be a success. While this is the American way, I can’t fault him on it, but it’s your chance, nay, duty to raise the bar. We need fighting men (and women, but that’s another column) in Iraq, and drafting skinny cowards like me would be like signing the mortgage for our country over to Saddam himself. In no way do I or my ordinary Midwest lifestyle intimidate Iraq. But they’re even more deathly afraid of homosexuality than our country is. It’s one of the few places on earth where the punishments are more draconian than ours for being who you are. Just imagine the first homosexual brigade we send in to Baghdad. Saddam would be leaving in minutes.

Look at it this way. Conservatives and the occasional lovely preacher like Fred Phelps love to tell us how unnatural being gay is. Even worse, it’s immoral, it’s like a ticket directly to hell, do not pass Purgatory, do not collect 200 vestal virgins. But are they willing to honestly lay a bet on the table? If so, gays in the military, right now. What’s a faster way to test the theory than to put them where they are far likelier to die from an overdose of bullets or VX nerve gas?

Last, but certainly not least, there’s nobody who is more pro-life than homosexuals. Look at the amazing precautions they take to avoid accidental impregnation. In 1995 alone, there were 1,210.883 abortions, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Amazingly, none of them were received by homosexuals engaging in their own chosen activity.

The best reason to do these things is to totally demystify homosexuality and eliminate what John Waters lovingly called the “trendsexual.” Honestly, what makes something sound more boring than Ralph Reed saying “I have no problem with that” or Jesse Helms calling it a virtue? It’d leave homosexuality to homosexuals, not people interested in being alternative without actually ditching Mr. Abercrombie or Mr. Fitch.

We have to realize that this war is going to be about something. Terrorists are attacking us for some reason, probably globalization. But just imagine if we could make it a human rights issue. And honestly, if you’re going to war over something and you have to choose Wal-Mart and McDonald’s or gay sex, you’re gonna choose the option that’s a little easier on your wallet. Frankly, since every president is concerned primarily with his own image, this one might as well look to be a hero in the history books years from now when he fought the kinky fight rather than the amorphous battle against terrorists that are unidentifiable until after they’ve killed.

If that’s not enough, well, you could look at the whole oppression thing, but uh … well, I’m not gonna count on that.

Tim Kearns is a senior in political science from Bellevue, Neb.