Monday, June 05, 2006

A Marriage Amendment Not Made In Heaven

It must be getting close to election time. That's the only explanation I can think of for why some politicos are once again pulling out the divisive, ridiculous issue of a gay marriage ban amendment. (We last heard about it around the '04 elections.)

President Bush and Pennsylvania commuter resident/Republicant Senator Rick Santorum - both men notably embattled even within their own party - are among the prominent officials looking to write bigotry into the US Constitution.

Thus far amendments have been added to the Constitution only to expand or protect rights, not to restrict them. Radical consternatives are now looking to make history by changing that tradition.

This is a bad, bad idea about which I have sufficient faith that the American people will one day look back upon with embarrassment. Some of us already feel that way, of course.

Imagine if a Jesse Helms, George Wallace or Strom Thurmond had been able to shoehorn an amendment restricting the rights of "nigras" to vote or own property into the Constitution back in the 60s. A shocking thought, that - at least nowadays.

I'm sure those individuals are/were racists, but I don't know what guys like Bush and Santorum are. Undoubtedly homophobes, but in supporting an amendment they are also likely trying to appeal to their far-right constituents. You know - the type who would actually vote for a Helms, Wallace or Thurmond.

What no one who supports a gay marriage ban seems to be able to do is put succinctly why such a ban is necessary. They talk in broad strokes about "harm to the foundations of our democracy" and the tradition of matrimony in America meaning "one man and one woman."

Beware of anyone who can't give you verifiable specifics on something they feel so passionately about: They're undoubtedly full of shit.

I've been in situations where I'm surrounded by consternatives (family and their friends) talking on this issue, and only decorum (i.e. it's not my home) has stopped me from giving this theoretical example:

You're here with your wife, and you love each other deeply. Your marriage is "solid." Across town at this very moment two men are getting married. How is your marriage impacted by that union, to the extent you think changing the Constitution is necessary? Oh, I see, it's not harmful to you so much as it's harmful to society in general? Do elaborate. (See my "broad strokes" above for the continuation of this conversation.)

The discouragingly high divorce rate among straight people in the US is a real issue with quantifiable impact. Kids are often caught in a tug-of-war between their parents, who pit them against the other parent. People are destroyed financially and emotionally. It ain't pretty.

Straight marriage seems to be an endangered institution in the US - independent of any sexual orientation issues. Why don't we try to fix things that are broken, and leave the things that aren't alone?

32 comments:

Bird said...

Here-here, Bogs!

As I mentioned on your fragmentia blog, my own marriage was never ever threatenned by gay marriage. i am at a loss to understand what the "threat" is.

all the gays and lesbians i know are involved in long-term, committed relationships and have stable, productive lives. how does this harm society? how does this threaten heterosexual marriages?

such relationships DO NOT threaten marriage - on the contrary - such relationships help build a just and stable society. i am at a loss to understand why we, as a society, would not want to encourage lasting and loving relationships and strong families, regardless of whether those relationships and families are "gay."

clearly, as you've pointed out - this amendment is a GOTV manuver (sp).

lord help us if this amendment ever passes.

i wonder how the US immigration office deals with legally-married homosexual couples from abroad?

Hellpig said...

The lord won't help us the lord is against gay marriage

Anonymous said...

How about banning divorce. Maybe the government should make it a felony to get a divorce.

Bird said...

has the lord been talking to you pig?

my god hasn't banned gay marriage at all.

could it be that not all americans worship in the same way or believe in the same interpretation of the good lord's word? goodness gracious, what a shock!

oh, but wait - what does the lord have to do with it at all? i'm remembering something, hmmmm... it's on the tip of my tongue...thinking, thinking,

oh yeah:

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!

Damn! I should have remembered that before i invoked the name of the lord in my earlier comment.

mea culpa.

Jack K. said...

Bogs, you have done it again.

You're theoretical proposition is one that the consternatives refuse to consider as valid.

The God I communicate to is a loving One who wants us to be true to ourselves and to be ready to deal with the consequences of our choices.

A plus on the side of gay marriage might be the ability to show how marriages can be successful and caring.

It would be interesting to see the rate of divorce might be when gay marriage is legalized.

I may have more to say about this later.

Keep your good works. You are helping to open other's view of their existence, should they choose to do so.

Huzzah!!!

Pete Bogs said...

wow, this is quite a response so far...

anon - the Catholic church has already done that... it's against "God's law" to get divorced, apparently...

Anonymous said...

Makes as much sense as codifying that black is not white or that up is not down. Demented minds will invariably invent absurd propositions such as pretend marriage and may even attempt to impose their individual lunacy on society at large, but the day that it became necessary to debate the senseless in Congress is the day that collective insanity finally reached critical mass.

GraysonBuzz said...

Marriage is a unique and special commitment between a man and a woman. When you start placing other relationships on the same tier as this union it cheapens the entire institution. What is people started calling a very different educational achievement a "Ph.D" even though it is not? It cheapens the accomplishment and title of those who have earned a Ph.D. The reason it is difficult to point to a specific impact today on marriage is that this is one of those incremental changes that, years down the road, will, in sum, fundamentally change the underpinnings of our society. Look at how society has lost so much decorum and deceny because we have gradually accepted and become desensitized to very public displays of vulgarity and sexuality.

Pete Bogs said...

derek - what are the SUSPECTED changes to society, then? be specific, if you can...

GraysonBuzz said...

I think it simply leads to more tolerance of anything people want to do. It is another brick in the wall of standards and values removed. When you place homosexual unions on the same tier as marriage, you effectively legitimize, from a governmental standpoint, this lifestyle. At that point, it becomes yet another case of sanctioning anything people want to do. This starts to add up to the point where there are no standards in our society. When the entire society is built on shifting sands, on what can be base bedrock principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? We could come to the point where we do not accept any of the basic premises of what makes America, America and that could have disastrous impacts for our country. It is not just about gay "marriage." I agree that divorce is a problem and I feel it is too easy to get married. We embrace so many forms of sexual deviancy and encourage immodesty. Many on the left assault and traditional value and advocate change for the sake of change. Gay "marriage" is just one issue, but IMO it is a big issue as marriage is on those institutions that we put on a pedestal and that we view differently. Once that falls, chipping away at our societal values could well get easier. "Well, the traditional view of marriage was shot down, so why should the traditional view on [insert issue] be held? It is not nearly as big a deal as marriage is."

Pete Bogs said...

gray - I think the lifestyle is "legit" no matter what you or I say... eons of homosexuality have not decreased their numbers, nor will any laws, hand-wringing or praying you wish to do... there have always been and will always be gay people... it's here to stay!

what is this about putting them at the same level as your marriage? why do you feel threatened? why do you feel the need to be on a tier ABOVE another human being?

you seem to be one of those people who see gays like drug addicts, where it's a bad thing they've chosen to do... that's very naive, I'm afraid...

how ironic you would quote "liberty" and the "pursuit of happiness" in this post... that's what those gay people who want to marry are after!

I love the words you use! "deviancy"... again, I don't know what the number of gay people is on this planet - not just those who are "out" but those who are secretly gay - but now and in the past there have always been LOTS of them... all the writers we read in school: Bill Shakespeare, Oscar Wild, etc. were there alongside the straight writers...

the other word is "immodesty"

I've got two past blogs for you on
this....

Sisterhood Of The Ill-Fitting Pants

Bogs Bares All

you'll love 'em...

K9 said...

/bark bark bark

i am not much on discussing issues regarding homosexuality having no interest in it and having no authority or insight regarding it.

however, i might remind you that "nigra" bias was not unique to consternatives examples include grand wizard byrd and wallace. not to mention the rejection of conservative blacks like lynn swan or a walter williams or dare i say it, clarence thomas by liberal blacks.

see, only blacks with the right ideology are embraced. meaning, succeed, but you know, succeed the "right way" thats how crack smoking mayor barrys and ineffectual dolts like nagin get reelected. they got the right speak down -but action, well WTF? results dont matter it seems.

the point being, prejudices are universal and i guaran-f**king-tee-ya many a lib have said "faggot" under their breath when the situation allows. not you. not bird, but you know what i am saying here. alot of talking the talk but in private deriding the walk.

did you see that story a few months back where a woman married a dolphin? i wonder if it was the same one who raped a man
at a theme park. freaking bisexual finned mammals!!!

i say let whomever get married, i am all for domestic
misery to be applied equally.

/grrrr

Pete Bogs said...

k9 - these issues have hit home for me in recent years with the coming of close friends and family members... well before that, though, I thought the notion of orientation as a "choice" was ridiculous... I love women but never chose it - it came naturally to me...

no, those weren't the only men with those beliefs... but that's the company that ultra-conservatives keep without batting an eye... shame on them for that...

I don't quite follow you on the Lynn Swann thing... are you saying white people only accept Uncle Tom blacks? if that's the case, I must have imagined all those white poseurs who walk, talk and dress like they're Snoop Dog... imitation is the most sincere form of flattery...

I have said "faggot" at a normal volume, too... it's a matter of who you're saying it to, and how you mean it...

Pete Bogs said...

"coming out," I meant to type...

Karen said...

"It must be getting close to election time"...

...orrrrrrrrrrrrr, bushie just had to bring out the *g* issue now, of course! His ratings are in the toilet so he must try to divert attention away from himself.

What better way than to play one of his many 'HATE' cards!!

The Flabbergasted Heathen said...

Comparing marriage to a PhD just doesn't fit. Getting your doctorate is something you're rewarded with for becoming an expert in your chosen field. Having those lettetrs beside your name serve as evidence to that fact.

A marrriage is a lifelong commitment between two people. Burn my marriage licence, and I'm still just as married to my wife. Marry the gays and lesbians, it will change nothing.

Anonymous said...

If marriage is a unique and special commitment between a man and a woman why do over 50% of all marriages end in divorce? To protect the institution of marriage divorce must be banned. Divorce cheapens the entire institution of marriage. There should be a federal law enacted making divorce a first degree felony or perhaps there should be an amendment to the Constitution making divorce illegal.

Pete Bogs said...

anon - I think the effect that will have is stop more people from marrying in the first place - resulting in more living in sin... I like it!

rusty shakelford said...

If you think about it, it really isn't an issue about bigotry at all. Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Gays and Heterosexual alike.
I have the right to own a gun but chose not to. Should the government come up with some alternative to satisfy my preference?
Where was the outcry when Clinton passed a law that allowed states to not recognize marriages from other states?

Pete Bogs said...

rusty - nice to see you again... I don't remember what the reaction was when Bill did that... the whole Don't Ask/Don't Tell thing was his compromise and it didn't please anyone...

K9 said...

/bark bark bark

no. what i am saying is it seemz that only black pols with "street cred" have any currency with black voters.

ha! id love to see a bogsian post on white surburban gansta fashion (in every sense of the word) someday. i know it will be a laugh riot from your hand.

and, what i was saying earlier is it isvery easy to say "i support this" and harbor a different reality deep in the heart.

remember my post on mrs kings funeral? same howl there. you know what im talking bout

/grrrrrr

K9 said...

/bark bark bark

yeah tell us more about your finesse with brassires (sp?0

?howl

you caint hep it youse was born dat way (AB speak)

/grrr

Pete Bogs said...

chile, please!

Pete Bogs said...

ps - K9, you must have read bird's bra blog... I hope she does, too...

btw, I may write about gay topics a lot, but I likes me some wimmins... I sava they mad flava, yo!

(a little nugget of white gangstaism, per your suggestion)

K9 said...

/bark bark bark

doan go X on us beyotch yul scare da children

agave got me crosseyed K9 OUT!

/howl

CROAK said...

Beautifully argued, Bogs.
I know what you mean about being someone elses house and having to keep quiet out of respect. It is hard sometimes when others are being so disrespectful of those they neither know or even met.
You write so well.
Keep it coming.

Jack K. said...

What is the lifestyle difference between heterosexual and homosexual marriage? There is only one.

The sexual act itself.

It is amazing that folks get so bent out of shape about how other folks conduct THEIR sexual lives.

It ain't nobodies business but THEIRS.

Jack K. said...

I just read Brin's posting that might have some relevance to this issue, particularly to the mention of Rove's strategy.

Just a thought.

Karen said...

"It is amazing that folks get so bent out of shape about how other folks conduct THEIR sexual lives"...

Amen Jack!!

Pete Bogs said...

jack - I suspect that's correct that Rove is having them bring this issue out now to rally the base... after he was "demoted" a short time ago he was assigned to focus on the mid-terms... then this issue pops up again... coincidence? I doubt it... this crap has worked for them in the past, so why change strategies now?

Jack K. said...

Their strategy is akin to trying to take a sip from a spitoon. lol.

CROAK said...

And surprise surprise our PM has just raised the issue once again... right on the coat tails of George yet again. Ho hum!

Right on Jack... they don't seem to be able to stop thinking about the sex act between people. Who are the weirdos??