Who Wants to Marry a Fag?

The Federal Marriage Amendment is the most odious piece of politicking I've seen in ages, and I've lived in DC now for ten years. In these years, I've seen politicking, I've seen naked hatred, I've seen the screwing of the little guy many many times. But this takes the cake. Where to begin?

Adding hatred and discrimination to the Constitution. Great idea there, guys.

Until the point is see millions of heterosexual married couples turning in their marriage licenses because they're suddenly "devalued" by San Francisco gays, I can't give a rat's ass about the argument that gay marriage somehow "cheapens" the straight institution.

And speaking of cheapening the straight institution, let's talk about "Who Wants to Marry [A Millionaire/My Dad/A Little Person]?". Yeah, shows like this don't cheapen the institution of marriage. Do Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell raise their voices in protest here? Nope. Straight people can feel free to get married as they please, even if it's a farce. No problem.

And then there's Britney and Jason. Let's think about this: During the 55 hours between the exchange of vows and the annulment ("I was too immature to know what I was doing!", she protests), had she died, he would, by operation of law, have been entitled to EVERYTHING she had that wasn't held in someone else's name. He would have been presumed to be the one significant other in her life. That presumption attached the MINUTE after the license was issued. That presumption NEVER attaches to gay couples.

The catalog of farcical marriages goes on and on: Anna Nicole and geriatric millionaire; Drew Barrymore's 12-day marriage to a bar owner; Cher's 9-day marriage. A virtual who's-who of "let's get married just for the heck of it." All while gay people sit and watch from the sidelines just wishing they could get a piece of that action.

Has anyone actually READ the Massachusetts decision that started all this, by the way? They made a great effort to distinguish between the civil institution of marriage, and the religious one. They are separate events. (Ever hear of the First Amendment?). Let the people marry at City Hall, the SJC said. No one is forcing any church to bless that union. Just give them the same government benefits anyone else is entitled to. "Activist" my foot. Fair-minded, I'll give you.

In fact, while we're on the First Amendment, let's talk about the fact that there are, in fact, a growing number of churches who do in fact bless gay unions as partners for life. Does not a marriage amendment then elevate a particular religious belief over others? Is this not another First Amendment violation?

To those anti-gay marriage folk out there, I say "Get over it." You'll never support anything that might, in some fleeting way, make gay people happy. And that's just pathetic.

Who Wants to Marry a Fag? At some point in the future, I would hope I would have that option.