Aquarian Weekly 3/17/04
REALITY CHECK

BIGOTRY & GAY MARRIAGE

Why are we arguing about gay marriage, again? Please, I really would like to know. Adult gay couples, citizens of these United States, can't marry? Why? I cannot get around this. Honestly. This isn't a literary vehicle to confound with circular logic or to flippantly speak to the absurdities of the argument. I am not playing around. I really have no fucking idea what the problem with this is.

Is it moral? What is moral? Isn't that self-realizing, not publicly debated, much less voted on? Who decides this? Law? Law decides love? Law decides the heart? This is about money, not morals. This is about entitlements, not law. So heterosexuals are only permitted access to entitlements? On what grounds? Didn't we just spend tons of cash and spill innocent blood excising Saddam Hussein halfway across the globe for that kind of criminal bullshit?

This isn't about morals. This isn't even about the sanctity of love, whatever that is. It's about money. We want ours, to hell with the rest. I know all about that. Typical.

Which is why these frightened dolts we vote for will never touch this thing head-on, not even the embattled president, who started all of this to polarize his right wing contingent once his numbers started to plummet below the acceptable level. It's a ruse. He's a ruse. Always has been, and so is his apparent opponent who will not answer this beyond civil unions or state rights, because John Kerry is a scared little frontrunner, who has the convictions of a smack dealer, and is sadly still a better choice than that insane idiot in charge right now.

By merely suggesting this madness as a constitutional amendment is a blatant form of bigotry. The chief executive has overreached his job description and displays the worst kind of government oppression that should not be tolerated by any American. We had to listen to this dolt jabber on about freedom so we can dive head long into his holy war in the name of freedom and then he pulls this hypocritical recrimination.

So, is the argument religious? On what authority? The Bible? The Bible would have the Israelites, of which, in every description of purity, we are few, marrying within the family. It is God's will that we keep the culture pure. Not your culture, the Israelites. So, if you happen to be an Israelite, marry your kin. If not, which is likely, shut the fuck up about religion and God. We know less about God than anyone with the exception of Mel Gibson and Jerry Falwell, who know less than nothing.

Is it the sanctity of marriage? What the hell is that? The sanctity of marriage? Who decides that? Where is the outrage when Darva Congers marries a millionaire in a televised contest? They can get legally hitched for ratings, but homosexuals can't marry for love and financial security?

Was that Britney Spears fifteen-minute marriage more legal than Rosie O'Donnell's? Apparently.

But was it more moral or religious? But don't get me started on that fat fraud, Rosie O'Donnell. When it suited her to be heterosexual to sell her talk show persona, she was swooning all over Tom Cruise, and now that she's rich, she is a militant dyke bitch from hell? What a phony. I think her stance on gay rights goes right up there with O.J. Simpson being a martyr for civil rights. Yeah, O.J. is black, and I'll be starting at center for the Knicks tonight.

And by the way, I don't want Julia Roberts to get married anymore. She made a mockery of marriage and embarrassed one of my favorite songwriters. I'm partial to Lyle Lovett. So, I've decided she cannot get married anymore. Period. That is my logic. I don't like Julia Roberts' marital record and I am a fan of Lyle Lovett's music. Stupid, right? But that argument has some merit. I have solid evidence Roberts blows at marriage. What merit does "gays cannot marry" have?

Moral? Nah. Religious? Nah. Aesthetic? Nah.

Legal?

How is it legal to deny rights? In the name of opening a can of worms: First you allow gays to marry, then fathers will be marrying sons and people will marry pigs or lampposts. Sure, that's a good one. You mean like we didn't need to abolish slavery and make African Americans citizens or allow women basic civil rights? Is it a bit like that kind of can of worms? You know how many people had to be jailed and threatened and publicly abused just to allow women to vote? And you know what those arguments against women's right to vote were? What's next, five year olds voting? Dogs? Sofas?

Then of course there is the always popular: It's disgusting. It's unnatural. It's disturbing. I'm frightened of it. Yes, good. I'm disturbed by Salsa music, fast food, talk radio, the price of a subway ride, and the L.A Lakers. Where can I sign up for banning these?

This is by far the dumbest subject I've had to rebuke in this space, and if you've been around for any of the past seven-plus years, you'd have to concur that I've had some beauts. But this takes the cake. It is so off the charts silly, it bares notice. There is no possible argument for this, least of all legal. It is patently unconstitutional and is all the reason George W. Bush would need to even broach it, because if this makes it to the Supreme Court, it's not even an issue, nor should it be.

This is one of the times when you are embarrassed to be an American and even more for being human.

Reality Check | Pop Culture | Politics | Sports | Music