My grandfather is circulating another e-mail. This one simply reads:
The God-ordained institution of marriage is under attack in courts across the nation, and your help is needed to save it before the one man-one woman definition of marriage is completely and radically redefined. Go to www.nogaymarriage.com and sign the petition supporting the Marriage Protection Amendment.
The petition itself is from the American Family Association (AFA), and it's basically a short-bus rant about how "activist liberal judges are intent on destroying the institution of marriage." Apparently, the ENTIRE NATION wants to ban same-sex marriage, but a small group of Democrats in the Senate managed to thwart the gaybashing will of the masses.
Goddamn, those are some powerful Democrats! And here I've been mourning the decline of the Democratic party like an idiot for the past few years. I had no idea our entire nation was at the mercy of these Überliberals! And you can't shoot them, because these bad boys eat bullets and shit filibusters, my brother!!!
But I digress...
One of the problems is the line between church and state gets really blurry when you're talking about marriage. Of course, most people don't feel that "separation of church and state" really applies if it's THEIR church that's getting shoved down the throats of the population, which is why they have no problem supporting a constitutional amendment to preserve the Judeo-Christian definition of marriage.
We've already made the distinction between marriages and civil unions. The problem is, the government has decided to ignore the one over which they actually have jurisdiction and instead focus on the one that is none of their business. If marriage truly is a "God-ordained institution," then the federal government has no business legislating it. Leave that up to the churches to decide. If you're a gay Southern Baptist and the Grand Imperial Wizard says no to same-sex marriage, then look elsewhere. (Of course, without dancing and drinking, that would be one suck-ass wedding anyway. I'm just saying...)
The fact that this is even an issue just goes to show you how retarded our nation can be. Back in 2000, Gore and Bush both stated that they felt the issue of same-sex marriage should be left up to each state. Not an ideal solution, but certainly preferable to our current federal mandate of gaybashing.
So what happened? Well, during the 2004 campaign, Bush kept saying he wanted to run on his record. But things weren't going all that well in Iraq, and the economy and job market were tanking here on the homefront. So somebody (*cough* Karl Rove *cough*) had the brilliant idea of misdirecting the voters by making up an issue.
Bush made his pronouncement that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Kerry concurred. But Bush went on to say there should be a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Kerry disagreed. In fact, so did Cheney. But it didn't matter. By that time, most of Bush's supporters had conveniently forgotten about the real issues and were already yammering on about how Kerry supports gay marriage and Kerry wants to make gay marriage mandatory and how if Kerry has his way, then the next thing you know people will want to marry goats...
So now, depending on who you believe, our nation is either totally polarized by this non-issue (according to the Jew-run liberal media) or we're all united in this fight against all things faaabulous except for a few damn liberal holdouts (according to the AFA). Either way, the line has been drawn and the battle is underway to ensure the survival of hot, wet man/woman nuptials.
I just don't get it. It's not like there's any overlap in these two areas. It's not like hordes of men who would've otherwise married women are going to suddenly turn gay. Banning same-sex marriage accomplishes nothing. It's about as pointless as banning Peanut M&Ms to preserve the sancity of the plain ones.
Thanks for listening. You've been very therapeutic.
5 comments:
I'm going to restate my theory that all these people in groups like the AFA, well, they secretly want it up the ass.
Oh, hell yeah, SJ. It's secretly all about the ass fucking.
My knee-jerk reaction is to agree with you implicitly. And I definately do agree about the misdirection during the election.
But although I consider myself to be quite socially liberal, I'm still undecided on the gay marriage issue.
My confusion has nothing to do with homosexuals or civil unions, as such, but about the definition of marriage.
I would argue that marriage is not defined by a "juedeo-christian" outlook, but a (culturally) world-wide understanding.
I guess my concern is that if relativism is so completely embraced then words will have no meaning. Woman/man. Cat/dog. It doesn't matter what you call anything, because simply to name it infringes on it's right to be whatever it wants.
And that seems crazy.
I can understand your reservations, KOM. And I totally see your point, even if I disagree with it.
For some people the "man/woman" distinction is the core of the definition of marriage. They feel that if that criterium is removed, then the institution will become meaningless.
For others, the "man/woman" distinction is just another unnecessary roadblock, like the now defunct bans against interfaith or interracial marriages. To them, marriage is a union between two people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together, and who want to make a public proclaimation of their commitment.
And no matter how many arguments I hear to the contrary, I don't think I'll ever be convinced that allowing same-sex marriages will in any way cheapen, undermine, invalidate, or destroy marriage as an institution.
Well as a Fag Hag who attends every gay pride festival in the Baltimore/Washington area, I have to say that if someone wants to get married let them. If your church doesn't allow it, then they won't get married there. But how does letting gay men or gay women get married effect you negativly in any way? It doesn't. What someone does in their bedroom at night is their business. Butt fucking is butt fucking, whether it is between two men, a man and a woman, or two women and a strap on.
I know a lot of gay people who are in committed relationships and it sucks that they have found the person that they love, want to spend the rest of their life with, but the government won't recognize it and give them a tax break, or let them be the ones who make the decisions for their loved ones when they are in the hospital dying.
Okay, I am done now.
Post a Comment