First, I'd like to tackle the issue of the "sanctity" of marriage. I've heard this term thrown around alot by people who either support the ban on gay marriage or are torn. Of my three friends who claim to be split on the issue, all find this "sanctity of marriage" to be a factor that keeps them from condoning gay marriage. Here's my problem, "sanctity" is a religious term. It's one thing to be personally or spiritually against gay marriage (though I still would look down on this as immoral as they find homosexuality itself) but to be politically against gay marriage on the basis of the "sanctity of marriage" is bullshit. What ever happened to the separation of church and state? Sanctity should not even be a factor in one's political position on the issue. I can't blame my friends for using this argument, though, because this is the main argument of the conservative politicians who want to bring their religious agenda to Washington. George W. Bush will ramble and fumble on and on about the sanctity of marriage, though few have questioned the validity of this word in the political context it is being used in. More importantly, the argument that the "sanctity of marriage" is between a man and woman only seems to be a way of diverting from the real issue at hand of homosexuality being recognized as acceptable by the government, as the Economist argues.
The next issue which must be addressed is that of these coersive, bible-thumping politicians (as well as the non-bible thumpers). Does George W. Bush really believe in this constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. or is he just pleasing his right wing base who have become increasingly displeased with his performance? I'm not sure, but I think it's a mix of both. Bush's right wing religious buddies are essential for his victory in 2004. If he can bring more of these wacko homophobe christians to the polls in November, then he'll be much better off. He probably knows that the chance of an amendment coming in the months before November is terribly low (though this may not be entirely out of the question). He also knows Cheney's lesbian daughter doesn't look good to this religious base, so maybe this is an entirely strategic move on his part. OR IS IT?!?!?! Arguments have been going around that Bush may actually mean what he says. He may be alienating as many voters as he is retaining. An estimated one million gay Americans voted for him in 2000. Also, many of the far right wingers may see his support of a Federal government constitutional ammendment as an intrusion on state's rights, alienating further voters. So, perhaps this is less strategic and more personal... I don't know, it's probably a bit of both. John Kerry and John Edwards are more interesting to look at tthough. I don't believe either is against gay marriage, though they are approaching the issue with caution, as politicians. Edwards claims he is against gay marriage, but is supportive of homosexuality. He's too much of a fighter for the little guy, the oppressed guy to be homophobic, I believe, so his "stance" is purely one of prudence. Kerry originally took the Cheney way out with reverting to the "let the states decide" stance, though when his own state was the first to allow for gay marriage, he claimed to be against it. Like Edwards, I doubt he is homophobic, but is rather a politician looking out for his own ass.
Now, I would like to know how marriage is now an institution above all else. Last I recall, marriage was a bond between two people, a private unity, not a public "institution." True, the government does give special tax status and certain rights to married people, but marriage is a bond above all else. The reason coersive politicians such as George W. Bush use the word institution is because it makes every married couple think "oh my, these gay people are going to ruin marriage!" when in reality, if the word "institution" was replaced be the word "bond," the reaction would be more like, "how are some gay people married in California going to affect my marriage in any way?" the answer: in no way. You see, it's word games, though not entirely incorrect. True marriage is, in a more insignificant form an "institution," as mentioned earlier. But how is throwing homosexuality into the equation going to fuck it up? IT'S NOT! In fact, it's the heterosexuals who have fucked up the "institution" of marriage as divorce rates skyrocket and domestic abuse is all too common. These problems do not plague the gay community the way they do the straight community (assuming that they are separate communities, which they really aren't, it's just common word usage, once again). Divorce among homosexuals would not cause the stir it does with straight people, because of a lack of children (assuming that they take on the same divorce rate, which I doubt will happen. Gay people tend to be better about those sort of things). Also, domestic violence does not happen among gay people the way it does with straight people AT ALL. If anything, they may be a shining example of how straigh marriages should be done in an age of divorce and abuse.
Lastly, the argument for a constitution amendment to TAKE AWAY PEOPLE'S RIGHTS is absurd. The mayor of San Fransisco correctly remarked that "the constitution was made to give people their rights, not to take them away" (more or less). I could not agree with him more. A constitutional amendment to take away people's rights would be a circumvention of our constitution and what it stands for. If this was to occur, it could signal the downfall of other basic liberties, such as freedom of speech or freedom to assemble (which Ashcroft would love). It suggests that gay people are second class citizens and is worse than anything suggested by a president during the Civil Rights era, which this argument is eerily reminiscent of. They want to make homosexuals "separate but equal" or so they think in their minds, but let's face it, we've already learned that separate isn't equal. And a violation of equality is a violation of the constitution, which makes a ban on gay marriage unconstitutional.
If you're not convinced yet, then you're just a stubborn, close minded republican, or rather just a republican. With all of this talk of amendments and Big government intrusion into the personal lives of some people, we have to ask ourselves an even broader, greater question: are we letting our own religious convictions, not to mention sexual insecurites, interfere with our political agenda? Does the government have the right to force Christian priciples on people. This isn't just about the word "God" in the pledge anymore (which is just leftist hippie politically correct bullshit), this is about taking people rights away. First the patriot act, now this. It's 1984 all over again (or twenty years late), and that's one thing we cannot allow.
Back to Homepage