RobsHouse.net

Homoland Security Breach Unnerves President

George Bush called upon the people today to “protect marriage” and collectively agree that marriage is much more about penises and boobs than it is about love, affection, loyalty, security, compassion, and all those other things. Mr. Bush deeply feels the need “to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever”, maybe on religious grounds, maybe because he feels personally threatened, maybe because the polls indicate that he needed to say such a thing to get re-elected. Who knows. What is really obvious, though, is that Mr. Bush hasn’t seen the kernal of truth in the matter; marriage is already changed forever. A large percentage of those couples in SF who recently tied the knot were simply repeating or reconfirming a decision they had made before, sometimes many years ago - that they would live life as a couple - a pair, as spouses. The fact that domestic partnerships are now largely recognized in so many areas of the country indicates that there is a wide understanding of the primary nature of dedicated gay relationships - that to the people involved, they are on par with the relationship that a married man and woman have with each other.

Despite that, domestic partnerships don’t do the job in all cases. There are too many laws that grant reserved legal rights to a married spouse but deny those rights to a domestic partner. In most cases, Mr. Bush would not argue that gay couples should be denied. He would never restrain a woman from being at her dying partner’s beside in a hospital on the grounds that they weren’t married. He’d probably not object if a man inherited a house and property that he’d lived in with his partner for life. And if he did, he’d be a real bastard. So what exactly is so scary about gays marrying that it requires a nation to rewrite the Constitution? Is Mr. Bush afraid that his relationship to Mrs. Bush will somehow be different if the Constitution doesn’t point out that he’s a man and she’s not? And what are the religious fanatics so worried about? If it is a sin to be gay, and a sin to marry gay, who cares? Let’m go to hell.

I understand that for people who have not really been exposed firsthand to the issues and realities of homosexuality, the whole idea can be unsettling. I can understand that they might not want to think about gay people, might not want to see gay people, might not want to be reminded that they exist, or have to worry (very unrealistically) that they are in danger of coming into intimate contact with a gay person against their will. These are all typical feelings of one who has not looked the issue squarely in the eye and erased all the Barbie and Ken brainwashing they grew up on. However, letting these fears and personal shortcomings dictate legislation that directly harms, humiliates, degrades and discriminates against a group of people that has done nothing wrong is mean, hateful and small-minded. Not that I think Mr. Bush isn’t mean, hateful and small-minded. But he isn’t suppoed to act that way, and encourage others to stoop to such a low moral and spiritual level.