Too tired to launch into full-on rant. Linking instead.
Ye gods, it’s a political post. I don’t normally do this kind of thing (to paraphrase a Pet Shop Boys song of which I’m rather fond), but I can’t not say this. Only it’s late and I’m tired, so I’ll say it with linkage.
About Bush’s proposed constitutional amendment that’s supposed to preserve the "sacred institution of marriage" by preventing gay people from participating in it: Cindy takes the words right out of my mouth; Kevin asks why Bush, if he really wants to shore up marriage, isn’t going after the 50% of married heterosexual couples who divorce; and MisterBS suggests that we reply with satire and "ridicule the ridiculous."
Okay, I’ll start. Why stop with a constitutional amendment that protects marriage by denying it to gay people? There are all kinds of institutions whose "sacred" nature we need to reaffirm. Let’s affirm the sanctity of education by making it illegal for gay kids to go to school. Let’s affirm our time-honored system of government by making it illegal for gay people to hold political office. For that matter, let’s go one step further and deny those sodomites the vote, and while we’re at it, let’s repeal the 19th Amendment — after all, we’re all about defending ancient traditions, and where in the Bible does it say that women can vote, anyway?
Look, "defense of marriage" people. You don’t like the idea of marrying someone of the same sex? You don’t have to. Nobody’s going to hold a gun to your head and frog-march you to San Francisco for a Gay Shotgun Wedding. You are not the swooning heroine of a Gothic novel, drugged with chloroform, bundled into a carriage by your mercenary relatives, and propped up at the altar while a sinister priest marries you to a heartless aristocrat. (Rest assured, we queer people really don’t consider you potential marriage material.) You’re welcome to your heterosexual spouses, and I, for one, have no interest in wrecking your homes. What I want to know is, why do you insist that I can’t have any legally recognized domestic bliss of my own? Especially when your own track record with the sacred institution of marriage is, er, not exactly spotless? (See Kevin’s post, again.)
I don’t know how to make it any plainer, short of stating it in words of one syllable. Sometimes I just don’t understand other people.
Actually, I guess that was a full-on rant.
“Look, “defense of marriage” people. You don’t like the idea of marrying someone of the same sex? You don’t have to.”
That’s not the way I heard it.
Rant on! 🙂
I’m also fed up with the “sanctity” argument for another reason: my church (Unitarian Universalist) is perfectly happy to bless and cherish same-sex marriages. So just whose “sanctity” are we talking about here?
I just don’t understand why people have their knickers in a twist on this, not at all. To me it is so simple: committed, loving couples should have legal recognition if they want it. Period.
The only political rants I like to read are the ones from people who don’t usually make them. I liked this one a lot.
The situation calls for a rant, political or otherwise. You go.
We love you when you rant!
Rant away. I can only hope that this cynical move backfires on Bush in a big.
All I want is to hear one good explanation of how gay marriages will undermine straight ones. I don’t want to hear about God’s will — that wasn’t necessary for an explanation of how lax divorce laws would undermine marriage — I want to hear about what gay marriages will do. If it’s because they can’t have children who are biologically related to both parents, then why are non-procreative straight marriages okay?
I can accept that people have religious views on it, and if you stand just by those, I’ll disagree but fine. It’s when people start putting in some other explanations that I get annoyed.
This summer I learned that someone I took an art class with married his long term partner. I saw pictures of the handsome grooms. It was a lot less tacky than Britney and whathisname.