Where's the harm in gay marriage?

Another great article from Rolling Stone, this one on gay marriage and how Republican attempts to split the electorate and rally their base may backfire this time (assuming the election isn’t fixed):

Indeed, Bush’s attack on same-sex marriage was so transparently political that even the nation’s most virulently anti-gay activists recognized the president’s insincerity. ”He’s some kind of demagogue without any core values whatsoever,” says the Rev. Fred Phelps, the reactionary, anti-homosexual crusader behind the infamous ”God Hates Fags” campaign. ”His only dominant value is expediency. He’s only doing this because he’s losing what core support he had, and anyone with half a brain can see it. He’s shameless.”

Being called a shameless demagogue by Fred Phelps? Damn, that’s gotta hurt. Of course, it’s sorta like being called a “partisan hack” by Tom DeLay, but still!

Personally, I’m shocked that Fred Phelps can speak. I thought he would drool, mostly, and rattle his chains while hissing at anyone who comes near him, rather like Hannibal Lecter in Silence of the Lambs. I think I’d still rather have dinner with Hannibal.

”The same rhetoric that’s being used today against the gay community was used then against interracial couples,” says Gavin Newsom, the San Francisco mayor who elevated the struggle for marriage equality to the national stage by presiding over nearly 4,000 same-sex weddings in early 2004. ”Nothing has changed. It is the same playbook, and it is as shameful today as it was then.”

Yeah, when people talk about “traditional marriage”, what exactly do they mean? ‘Cause, traditional marriage, in my book, is arranged marriage, which was commonplace for centuries, and is still the norm in some countries. Is that what they’re harkening back to? Or are they saying that men should own their wives like property? ‘Cause that’s traditional marriage, too. Or maybe they just don’t want any black people marrying white women. I suppose they’re still bitter about that; which means they’re really pissed about two guys marrying each other.

Ah, social conservatives. They’re so fun to tweak. Their tiny brains explode at the slightest provocation. Heck, that’s half the fun, just watching them fume. It would be much more enjoyable if they stakes weren’t so high, however. The views of the social conservatives should not become the law of the land. If they don’t like it, it’s their problem. Accept responsibility, you whiney little brats. They’re so keen on personal responsibility until it’s their problem, then all of a sudden we’ve gotta get the government involved! Hypocrites.

”Homophobia is replacing the set of flag and race issues of a generation ago,” says Kevin Phillips, the one-time Nixon strategist who coined the term ”Southern Strategy” to describe the GOP’s leverage of racial prejudice to wrest the South from Democratic control. ”It’s the last refuge of the scoundrel.”

Basically, that is correct. Just as terrorism has now replaced communism as the new Fear-word, homophobia is the new cultural issue to replace racism. I don’t understand these people who insist upon being wrong all the time. Can’t you see which way the wind is blowing? Gay rights are the new civil rights. As a straight man, I want to be on the right side of this debate, even if I get called a fag-lover. Of course, there are plenty of racists, even today, but a lot of the old ones are dying off and being replaced with a new generation of kids that listen to hip hop and sees Jim Crow laws as ancient history.

When will everybody be free in America? I’m not interested in freedom just for white males who own land. I’m talking about every single person feeling that they have the freedom to conduct their lives as they see fit, no matter what gender, race or class they belong to. It’s a long, hard road, and we’re not there yet. But I hope one day we will be.

In a way, maybe we should thank George Bush and his cadre of neo-fascist goons. They are showing the world the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of their entire movement, and every day more people are waking up and saying, “hey, waitaminute — these guys are assholes! They’re not looking out for me; they just want power!”

Just to prove it, what is the right’s main argument against gay marriage? That it “destroys the sanctity of marriage,” right? Well, instead of a consitutional amendment, what they should do is sue a gay couple in civil court for monetary damages. Let’s put the onus on the gay-bashers to come up with a rubric that shows how having a gay couple in town causes actual, measurable financial or emotional harm. Let’s see it, bitches: Money talks, and bullshit walks.


You can screech back, or trackback from your own site.

One Response to “Where's the harm in gay marriage?”

  1. Anonymous says:

    Read your Bible!

Screech your thoughts here: