Pro-Planetary Legislation Needed

The sanctity of planetary existence has been under attack by so-called liberals who would expand the definition of what constitutes a planet. Bucking traditional planetary values, these people would define "planet" in such a way that a horse would qualify as a planet. Should we all go live on a horse?

The International Astronomical Union has proposed a definition of:

a celestial body with sufficient mass to assume a nearly spherical shape that orbits a star without being another star or a satellite of another planet. By this definition, the list of planets in order from the sun now reads: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Ceres, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto-Charon (considered a double-planet system) and the newly discovered and officially unnamed 2003 UB313, otherwise known as Xena.

The committee also proposed a new category of planets, called plutons, be applied to those bodies that, like Pluto, both take longer than 200 Earth years to revolve around the sun and have eccentric orbits outside the typical orbital plane.

The First Unichurck has already made its position clear on this subject. The mistake was in including Pluto instead of Xena in the chosen nine.

But now, these reductio ad absurdists have attacked the whole dignity of planetariness. They want to literally throw the baby out with the bath water, and that is a form of post-birth abortion. The First Unichurck opposes post-birth abortion (with certain exceptions such as telemarketers, e-spammers, and Ted Kennedy).

Let's stop the insanity. If you want to make up a new definition for your little round objects, then so be it. Call them "happy-balls" or "space thingies." But, for the sake of the children, leave our "planet" alone.