Rant: Gay marriage.

I figure I'll just use this blog for reviews, rants, and diary, and just label each entry thus. That way hypothetical readers will know what to skip.

Gay marriage. The only reason we keep having to debate it in this country is that the morally bankrupt Republican leadership -- those guys who will sell out our children's education, our environment, and our health to the highest bidder -- have established themselves as the moral compass of the nation, because they hates them some gays and some abortion. The great lie, which has worked very well for them, is that they represent the interests of the middle and lower classes because of this religious platform. Anybody who is paying attention can see that the Republican leaders couldn't care less about the poor or the middle class -- just look how we've fared with eight years of Dubya.

Nevertheless, the Repubs have gotten a lot of mileage out of the idea that opposing gay marriage, and legislating against it, is something our government should be doing. And in typical fashion, the Democrats have fought the debate on the Republicans' terms. No one has the stones to say what should be said, which is this:

The government has no business legislating what gender of people can enter into this government-recognized union. None. There is no other contract that the government ratifies in which you're allowed to exclude people by gender. The movement in this country has ever been toward equality and more rights for more people, not selectivity and fewer rights for fewer people. It's madness. It's not even Sparta.

The confusion comes from the fact that the word "marriage" means two things: a union that is blessed by a religion, and a union that is recognized by the government. Thus some religious types think that if the government recognizes same-sex unions, that means somehow their religious covenant is tainted, because their God isn't down with gay folk. The obvious solution, then, is to separate the two: say, "look, any two people can have their marriage ratified by the government. If you want your marriage blessed by a deity, that's none of the government's business. That's the way it should be.

Of course, those who oppose gay marriage don't see it that way. The subtext of every argument against gay marriage is basically, "my God says you can't do this, make it illegal." But that doesn't work with how our government is supposed to operate, so they have to make other arguments, which are pretty easily debunked, should any politician have the huevos to actually address them. Breaks down like this:

Argument: Marriage is for procreation, therefore gay marriage violates the spirit of it.

Rebuttal: The government recognizes unions of people who either won't or can't have children: infertile couples, elderly couples, couples who just don't want kids. Moreover, plenty of people have children outside of wedlock. If you can have marriage without children and children without marriage, where is this inherent link between procreation and marriage?

Argument: Marriage creates the ideal, stable family unit: man, woman, and children. (This is the Catholic church's stance, and I saw it parroted by someone who is usually smarter than this. Kids, never let your church do your thinking for you)

Rebuttal: Half of these 'stable, ideal family units' end up in divorce. Not to mention the obvious fact that many family units are neither ideal or stable -- for every wonderful perfect nuclear family, there are dozens of abusive relationships, loveless marriages, etc. Two men, or two women, are equally as likely to be in a stable, loving relationship as are a man and a woman. As far as raising children goes -- well, it's a peripheral issue, but studies have repeatedly shown that children with gay parents end up just fine -- no more prone to neuroses than the rest of us, and no more likely to be gay themselves (almost as if you can't nurture someone to be gay or straight, like it's hardwired biologically).

And my favorite argument:
Marriage is a sanctified tradition -- its sanctity isn't tied to a specific religion, but to its status as an institution.

Rebuttal: Newt Gingrich, who spearheaded the Defense of Marriage act, is on his third marriage. Bill Clinton, who signed it into law, was notoriously unfaithful to his wife. Britney Spears was married for 24 hours. Yet no one (sadly) is arguing that politicians and pop stars shouldn't be able to get married. No one's arguing that anyone who gets divorced shouldn't get married again. No, we're only denying marriage to, say, lesbian couples who have been together for twenty years. The very fact that I could have met someone in a bar and married them the next day says a lot about the supposed sanctity of marriage.

So let's be real: the only reason people want to outlaw gay marriage is that they think their God isn't down with it. We don't make laws based on dieties' preferences, or the first Mormon president could outlaw Coca-Cola. It's not the way our country works.

So if you're an anti-gay marriage type, and you're still reading for some reason, just think about it: if you cast your vote for a politician just because they match your 'family values,' you're only fooling yourself. Jesus said to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, and care for the sick. Do you see Mr. Bush and his cronies engaging in any of those things?