The Massachusetts state legislature stepped away from the gay marriage issue temporarily. One suspects they’re waiting for the White House to act first, when Bush is CLEARLY looking for someone else to follow. He keeps making noise about a “marriage protection amendment” but I have my doubts about that one being anything more than something to keep is fundamentalist backers satisfied for the moment.
Dumb as Bush is, he can’t be stupid enough to think that such an amendment would (a) pass and (b) get him re-elected. If this is the number one campaign issue of 2004, it’s a stupid one to hitch your wagon to. Say what you will about family values and sanctity of marriage, Will and Grace is a top-rated show. People might not be thrilled about the idea of actual gay people, but I’m not sure anyone’s up to attempting to legislate them out of existence with a freakin’ Constitutional amendment. We never got the Equal Rights Amendment, and I think more people know and are generally friendly with women than they are with gay people.
Besides, Bush already plans on coasting by on his past performance, apparently believing he’s accomplished something. Why on earth would he try to promise anything for the future? (However, follow the money. Maybe it’s not the Christians Bush wants to keep happy, but the insurance companies. After all, the current situation means that a gay couple has to get two separate policies…)
So while I’m not really worried about Bush the uniter planning on adding clearly dividing text into the Constitution, this really doesn’t accomplish much for our homosexual neighbors.
I’d really like to understand this utter horror at the notion of two gay people having a legally-recognized union, with the rights and benefits (and drawbacks) such things bring. What is the BFD? How does this affect anyone else’s marriage anywhere? Or will it somehow disrupt the etheric beams emanating from the ideal concept of marriage that lives in Nirvana? Marriage has somehow survived multiple divorces, marriages of convenience, marriages of inconvenience, celebrity bizarro marriages, and arranged marriages without losing much steam. Yet the idea of it being destroyed by people who want marriage so much they’re willing to fight for the right? That’s just absurd.
It would be really nice if we could channel as much energy into feeding hungry people or helping abused spouses as we do into making sure people use their winkies correctly. It amazes me how many people want to make certain everyone else follows the rules that their God allegedly put down, yet don’t seem to have time to follow other rules themselves. And the same kind of panic rhetoric that works on one side — if we legitimize gay marriage, we’ll be opening the door for polygamy, pedophilia, bestiality — works just as well the other way — if we discriminate against gay people, we’ll just be opening the door for discriminating against women, blacks, Jews.
I just don’t get it. I don’t understand why this is such a huge deal. I don’t understand the mortal (and moral) danger that homosexuals present to straight folks everywhere, so much so that we must shore up the very foundations of our government to guard against it. Maybe I need a little Psychotic Religio-Fascist Eye for the Marxist Secular Humanist Guy.