wJun 7, 2006

slowly pulling myself together


President Bush has pushed for a Constitutional ban on gay marriage twice this week. "Marriage is under attack!" is a cry heard by many conservative pundits.

Really? This is something that I don't understand. Even supposing that, for whatever reason, you think a person is immoral because they are gay, how does their getting married undermine marriage itself? "Wow, suddenly my marriage is meaningless because two filthy, immoral people are married, too!" If this was really the case, then marriage lost its 'sanctity' a long time ago.

If gay marriage is really detrimental to society in some way, I have yet to hear a reason why.

The most concrete reason I've encountered was one vocalized to me by whomever answered the phone at my state representative's office when I called to express my thoughts. As I believe I've mentioned before, he decided to argue with me (which is very unprofessional, in my political experience, but whatever). He said, "Do you want your tax money paying for the benefits they'll receive as a married couple?" (This can be read as: Do you really want your money giving the filthy gays the same benefits received by every heterosexual couple who shares their lives together the same way?!) My response could have been more eloquent, but it was something like, "I'm pretty sure my taxes pay for a lot of things that I don't agree with, and most of them are a lot more expensive than whatever crappy little tax credit that gay people would receive if they got married."

What it comes down to is a denial of civil rights. This is obviously always a negative thing for any society. It's even more ridiculous when there is no 'other side.' There is no purpose to banning gay marriage, and the only reason politicians get excited about (you'll notice that they only get excited about it during election season - like right now) is because it's a way for them to motivate their conservative base to go to the polls. (Isn't that sad? That in order to actually motivate a person enough to perform a civic duty necessary to making their government function, they must inflame their self-righteous feelings that somehow make it okay to strip people of their rights?) The politicians don't really give a shit about the gay marriage ban. They all know it's not going to pass. It's a game.

If gay people are not allowed to marry each other in this country, they will still be gay. They will still live together as married people do.

And the people who hate gay people will still have to get over it.

Current Music: Grace - Kate Havenik
scribbled mystickeeper at 12:25 AM

Jackie, your layout looks nice. It's a nice change from the last colors. I'm not good at matching colors either, but yours look fine to me.

I agree with your post, I was actually going to post something about it this morning too. I saw on the morning news Monday the story about gay marriage and then today their top story was about how Congress gets to go on a lot of paid trips funded by private companies. So for some reason, I must have been in an irritable mood, I was really annoyed and thought maybe Bush should focus more on things that are messed up before he messes anything else up.

By Blogger Dave, at 12:50 AM, June 07, 2006  

I would like to write something meaningful and witty, but I am tired. Is this the sort of politics I have to look forward to every two years?

It is just enough of a boot stomping on the face of humanity to "rally the base," but not enough to have an effect on people's lives. The impotence of these measures make them more depressing.

By Anonymous Antoine, at 3:25 AM, June 07, 2006  

It's posturing, plain and simple, as you already know.

I think Lewis Black said it best with "Gay marriage ranks slightly above 'Do we eat too much garlic as a people?'."

I hate the fact that people seem to have only short term memory.

Remember just a few years ago when abortion was the big issue that the republican party said that they'd do something about?

Funny that now there's a republican majority in congress, a republican president, and some definite conservatives on the Supreme Court, the issue hasn't really come up anymore...

By Blogger Creighton Hogg, at 9:49 AM, June 07, 2006  

I would've commented---butbutbut, blogger was DOWN a whole bunch

llamas to you


By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:19 PM, June 08, 2006  

I like that you put the political posts of note thing up, now I want to read them...

I find it troubling that it doesn't bother straight couples that MY tax money goes toward supporting their precious marital bliss, but it might bother them if they have to do the same for me.

That and the ban also affects straight couples, including the elderly who live together to make the most of their fixed incomes (which is why the AARP is against the ban) and the rights of unmarried straight parents to make custodial decisions regarding their children.

This woman I work with, Kriss, is totally awesome. I think you would dig her. She is a devout Christian yet is also very liberal, and the other day we were discussing my zine and she said, "y'know, I want to hear more from the pro-life feminists out there. Because' I'm one of those." And I was like, 'word. I want to hear more from the pro-life feminists, too." That's all, yo. I hope I get to see you while you're in town!!!!

By Blogger Gretchen, at 4:45 PM, July 14, 2006  

Post a Comment