Immediately following the Rosie O’Donnell ruling

WASHINGTON D.C.—Members of the United States Supreme Court have ruled that the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act is largely unconstitutional, paving the way for same-sex couples to marry. But there is a catch.

“I think it would be irresponsible to make wholesale changes to DoMA simply because it denies basic human equality to a large segment of the population,” Chief Justice John Roberts says, “A large part of our national identity resides in our longstanding misinterpretation of the intentions of our fore fathers when they wrote the Constitution.”

Instead of allowing every gay couple in America who desires to marry, Roberts says the court will review each case separately and decide who will be allowed to enter into the bonds of matrimony. Following days of intense debate on the subject, Roberts credits Justice Clarence Thomas with coming up with the creative compromise.

“We were like a jury in there deciding this thing,” says the notoriously gregarious Thomas, “And any time I’m on a jury, you know that’s a hung jury.”

According to Thomas, the factor that led to the unique decision occurred when he suggested the court view a selection of scenes from various gay and lesbian-based cinematic features.

“Those scenes really moved this thing forward,” Thomas says, “There are so many beautiful examples of homosexual love to be witnessed on the silver screen. Obviously, the gay cowboy scenes were heartfelt, but I really believe the one that pushed it over the top was the pool scene from Wild Things.”

“The reason for allowing gay marriage on a case by case basis is simple,” Roberts says, “America is simply not ready for every gay person in this country to be equal. But we have the opportunity to introduce the idea slowly, so it can evolve. Take Portia de Rossi and Ellen DeGeneres for example. Portia’s pretty hot, and Ellen is not terrible. We’re okay with that, and so are most Americans. Would it be better if it were Portia and someone like, say, Jennifer Love Hewitt? Absolutely. But we’re not trying to tell people who to love. Now, I don’t think anyone but Clarence would be okay picturing Rosie O’Donnell on her wedding night.”

While the ruling would seem a clear victory for proponents of gay marriage, the initial response has been chilly. Members of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation say this is actually a step backwards.

“This decision is baffling,” says GLAAD Chairman Thom Reilly, “The reason most Americans are anti-gay is because they don’t want to picture gay people having sex. Everyone knows that the first thing that stops when a couple gets married is the sex. What the court is doing, effectively, is killing the sex lives of the people they want to picture engaging in sex, while the rest of us keep going at it like a bunch of deviant bunnies. It makes no sense.”