« Gettin' Kinda Warm in this Handbasket | Main | Et Tu, Brian Williams? »

February 12, 2004
And On and On...

It bothers me that I feel compelled to write about the gay marriage more than anything else, but it's obviously a big issue right now, and will be a big issue in this election. It bothers me because I truly wish that it wasn't necessary. I wish people were more enlightened, more tolerant, more loving of one another. I find it pretty sad that I have to watch people argue (and argue myself) over whether our government should engage in discrimination.

The biggest fallacy I see in the anti position is that gay marriage will produce some kind of harm. If they are to be believed, then on the day when gay couples can legally marry -- that is, the day that their loving, committed relationships are recognized by the government as being worthy of protection -- some irreparable harm will befall the "American Family."

Now I know they're not saying that all of a sudden marriage will come crashing down. They're saying that it is a step in a process that will proceed to systematically dismantle their value system and the beliefs that they hold. Like it's some kind of big conspiracy to dismantle "marriage."

The problem with this argument is simple: Gay marriages have NO EFFECT on any other marriages. Easy. Any marriages that now exist between men and women, or come into being in the future, will enjoy the EXACT SAME protections and benefits under the law that they have always enjoyed. And that's the key point: If our government, and by extension we as a society, chooses to bestow any benefits and protections to marriage, then under our brilliant constitution they must be extended equally to everyone. Separate is not equal.

I hear a lot from the president and the others about "activist judges" imposing their liberal agenda on the American people. This is just wrong. The rulings in Massachusetts do not take a stance on homosexuality; they take a stance on equality. The rulings are about equal protection. They are saying that the lawmakers must show some real cause to deny rights to certain citizens, and they have not done that. It is the role of our courts to do exactly what they're doing: To interpret our laws and constitution and to ensure that some people's view of morality does not get translated into codified discrimination.

The woman representing "families" on Nightline tonight asserted that if gay people are allowed to marry, if the definition of marriage is broadened to include same-sex couples, then the "defense of the idea that children need a mother and a father will be eventually viewed as hate speech." She appeared to be serious. Someday, if these crazy homos are allowed to visit each other in emergency rooms and collect social security benefits, the very mention of a marriage between a man and woman will be outlawed. We'll all be forced into homosexuality, most likely in dark, wood-paneled rooms with black light posters and mustachioed oily men. Our whole society will be on a direct path toward a giant gay orgy, with your kids right in the middle.

As I said at the beginning, I feel stupid for even discussing it. It seems so painfully obvious how nuts these people are.


Previous Comments