Now, I don’t want to get off on a rant, here*, but defining marriage is about as necessary as a five-assed monkey. President Bush declared in a sound byte heard on the news every thirty minutes while driving that he will support the legislation on a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as a union between a single man and a single woman. I’m really glad he took the time to define the single part, because for a minute there I was worried he was about to neglect that serious bigamy problem this country is facing.
All kidding aside, folks, it seems to me that taking the time to defend what has become an idolized institution is not really what we should be focusing on in the political blitzkrieg that is Election ’04. The national concern over whether or not to allow same-sex marriages is about as crucial to the survival of the United States as hunting down and executing litterbugs on the highway. Instead of trying to marginalize a group of citizens by taking this so-called institution and putting forth a concrete definition as an amendment and thus wasting taxpayer’s time and money toward that end, we could be doing something more important, like tending to the economy or how’s about putting a stop to our boys and girls from being killed over in a country we supposedly beat into submission. I realize that Bush Part Deux is coming under heavy fire right now amidst all the finger-pointing and mud-slinging regarding Desert Shitstorm II, but diving behind the cover of same-sex marriages is going to be about as effective as trying to prevent horny Comdex’ers from bolting across the street to Adult-dex. It just won’t work.
Here in California, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has the right idea; by obeying the California constitution in permitting access to all legal licenses to all citizens regardless of gender, ethnic background, or sexual orientation. Sure, the dumbass residents of this state did pass Proposition 24 a few years back, but to be honest, no one has had the balls to fight it until now. With the Governator supporting the “law” and “instructing” the State Attorney General to enforce the law (to which the Governor can’t even instruct the AG to go to the bathroom), they’re going to take it to the State Supreme Court and determine whether or not the proposition is unconstitutional. What does the Republican fringe choir have to say about that? “You’d better stop them from threatening marriage, or we’ll recall the Attorney General.” Give me a fucking break, you psychotic motherfuckers. I’m confident that our State Supreme Court will have the law in mind when they overturn Prop 24 and send a wake-up call to everyone: Hey, asshole, wake the fuck up. You can’t sing about the land of the free when you enforce your ass backwards single-minded bullshit on the whole state just to make sure your faith in God is secure. As Dennis Miller once said, “You know, God has no place in politics. Quite frankly, if God saw the way some Republicans invoked His name, He’d turn athiest.”
And on the note of the so-called institution of marriage, let me just admit that once, I was in a marriage. It was nice for the first year (maybe), but I wouldn’t say that my entire life is based on it. I got divorced in less than two years, and even then I wouldn’t ever look back and try to defend it. Why should only heterosexuals be tortured by the emotional nightmare that is marriage? Come on, let’s be open-minded and let the dream/nightmare be an equal opportunity! Let me also be blunt about another problem of the whole concept: it was a religious ceremony we brought over from the Old World, and used licenses to regulate it. Then, because we wanted to allow citizens the opportunity to marry without the constraints of religion, we began civil services. So, by that tone, Justices of the Peace were inclined to grant same-sex civil unions. Most people I’ve talked to about this say, “Well, they have civil unions, what more do they want?” How about breaks on things like taxes, car and life insurance, medical coverage an dother health benefits? Don’t you get it, you backwards-minded asshole? Marriage is more than just a piece of paper to some of these couples; it’s an opportunity to partake of those benefits heterosexuals take for granted. What does this mean in the long run? Homosexuals are second-class citizens. If you don’t think that benefits and perqs are a good enough basis for a major gripe, then I’d love for you to go to every union of workers in this country and convince them to give them up… you’re more likely to convince Bush that one presidential term is more than enough. If a heterosexual couple is able to catch a 20% break on anything, then a homosexual couple should reap the same benefits. End, period, paragraph.
As for this Constitutional Amendment, well, the last time we deny rights on an amendment, we gave up liquor en masse. Then once Congress sobered up, they realized what a fucking mistake they made and quickly repealed that thing so they could hit the pub and drown their miserable lives in a bottle of Jack Daniels. If same-sex marriage actually gets a slap down from the Almighty Cocktail Napkin, then don’t be surprised if in a decade or less when Congress is suddenly 51% gay, that we see another amendment getting passed to repeal it. One generation’s fuckup is the next generation’s crusade, it happens all the time in our history.
So let’s not start whipping out the pride parades or the civil rights marches just yet. So far, all I’ve seen is the incoherent mumblings of our Fucktard-in-Chief. I don’t take to heart more than 80% of the bullshit that comes pouring out of his pie-hole, so I’m not going to hold my breath until the states are asked to start ratifying this thing. Until then, write your local member of the Stonecutters to let them know how you feel. After the first 50,000 letters they get, I’m sure they’ll actually start to read them.
Of course, that’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.*
(* with apologies to Dennis Miller)