By Peter Maguire
By Charles Lam
By Charles Lam
By Andrew Galvin
By R. Scott Moxley
By Gustavo Arellano
By R. Scott Moxley
By R. Scott Moxley
Last week, a Massachusetts court ruled that gay marriage is legal in that state, providing new fuel for conservatives who are gearing up to make gay marriage the wedge issue of the presidential election. President Bush has already hinted that a constitutional amendment, for crissakes, may be necessary to stave off this gay threat.
Responding to the Massachusetts ruling, Bush released a statement saying, "Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. If activist judges insist on re-defining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the constitutional process. We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage."
Before we all go into knee-jerk paroxysms of knee-slapping hilarity over this non-issue being hoisted by these moral morons, consider their side for a minute: Does allowing gays to marry threaten the institution of marriage?
If you really think about it, the answer is an unequivocal yes.
If you're straight and married, you've almost certainly got gay people to thank for it. Wedding planners, florists, clothiers, hairstylists, caterers, priests: it's no mere stereotype that these professions abound in gay folk, and your wedding would have been drab if not impossible without them. Add to that the gay friends and officemates who make such a pleasant and positive fuss about your nuptials. And TV's Queer Eye spiff-up squad is only a distillation of what gay people have been doing for ages: making straight men and women look desirable, or at least survivable, to each other so that they might hook up.
If gays were busy getting married themselves, do you think they'd have time to preen the rest of us? We'd all be back in the trailer park in our overalls, picking scabs off our unmoisturized faces and wondering why the phone doesn't ring. It is only because gays can't marry that they get caught up at all in the romance and filigree of heterosexual marriage, and they'd be off us like fleas off a wet dog if they could go to weddings that didn't depend upon our breeder antics. It's not just marriage, but the very survival of the species that depends upon gays being forcibly kept—by constitutional amendment, if need be—in their role as our eternal best men and bridesmaids.
Now on to the knee-jerk paroxysms: aside from the above, every gay man and woman in the nation could marry five times over, and it would not affect you a whit. Why the hell should you care? If Eskimos marry, does your wedding bed grow cold? If gays marry, does your wife grow a dick? It does not affect you! Remember one of the founding tenets that made America great: mind your own goddamn business. That goes double if you're the government prying in between the sheets.
I've known some gays who are real jerks. That's because they're like everybody else, except for the making your wife grow a dick thing. There are gay jerks, gay Samaritans, gay plumbers, gay machinists, gay bums, gay war heroes and gay Sept. 11 victims. They get to pay the same taxes, do the same jury duty and die in the same wars (albeit with a sense of service and secrecy that straights needn't muster) as every other citizen. Why shouldn't their love and commitment be accorded the same respect and protections in the land to which they contribute and defend?
But gay marriage would make a mockery of marriage! And that's the job of heterosexuals, right? Can they possibly screw it up worse than straight folks? The divorce rate's higher than 50 percent, and couples are bailing out of marriages quicker than ever; something like 60 percent of married men and 40 percent of married women have extramarital affairs; and their kids who aren't busy shooting their classmates are packed with so many pills they sound like maracas when you shake them.
An 86-year-old sleazeball can marry an 18-year-old dominatrix, and that is sanctified. Larry King can marry for the seventh time, and it's sanctified. Britney Spears can get married and annulled quicker than you can say "publicity whore," and it is sanctified. Yet a gay couple that has stuck it out through better and worse for 40 years, being exemplary neighbors and citizens the whole while, pose a threat to marriage? It is legal for them to marry, of course, just not to each other. They could go out this afternoon and marry a total stranger, so long as it's someone of the opposite sex. That's the law. What's left to mock?
But for all of history, marriage has meant the sacred bond between a man and a woman! Except for when it meant a man and several women, or a man and a woman and his deceased brother's wife, or a man and his slave, which wasn't significantly different from being his wife since women were chattel with no say in their own lives and certainly no vote. Let's be guided in all things by historical precedent, shall we? I'll go lock up the slaves and child laborers while you go get the horse—but don't hook no buggy to it because that ain't how we done things—and we'll go downtown and shout down those apostates trying to introduce antibiotics, electricity, pavement, baseball and all that other newfangled nonsense.