Sorry, crustaceans and reptiles. You didn’t make People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals‘ list of animals that deserve protection under their proposed constitutional amendment, which declares “all mammals, birds, and fish will, henceforth, be defined as ‘persons’ in the eyes of the law.” Of course, PETA’s idea of protecting animals would strip us of everything from our leather shoes to the milk in our breakfast cereal (not to mention bacon and eggs).

PETA president Ingrid Newkirk has called human beings the “biggest blight on the face of the earth.” Why would PETA want to degrade animals to our status?

Laws establishing rights for animals may seem like a joke, but in 2002 Florida approved an amendment to its state constitution that extends rights to pregnant pigs. PETA crowed that the Florida measure “could lead to similar … campaigns in other states.”

We’re assuming that PETA’s “animal rights” amendment wouldn’t be retroactively enforced. If so, they would be in hot water for killing more than 1,300 dogs and cats in 1999 alone. The group spends less than one percent of its 24-million-dollar budget actually helping animals, choosing instead to use its fortune on cheap PR stunts.

One final question: In PETA’s election-year utopia, could a dolphin be charged as an accessory to murder for eating a live sardine served up by its trainer?