As promised last night:
In Defense of Gay Marriage (excerpts)
So just shut up and buy Adam and Steve a nice present already by Jim Washburn
Responding to the Massachusetts ruling, Bush released a statement saying, "Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. If activist judges insist on re-defining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the constitutional process. We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage."
Before we all go into knee-jerk paroxysms of knee-slapping hilarity over this non-issue being hoisted by these moral morons, consider their side for a minute: Does allowing gays to marry threaten the institution of marriage?
If you really think about it, the answer is an unequivocal yes.
If you’re straight and married, you’ve almost certainly got gay people to thank for it. Wedding planners, florists, clothiers, hairstylists, caterers, priests: it’s no mere stereotype that these professions abound in gay folk, and your wedding would have been drab if not impossible without them. Add to that the gay friends and officemates who make such a pleasant and positive fuss about your nuptials. And TV’s Queer Eye spiff-up squad is only a distillation of what gay people have been doing for ages: making straight men and women look desirable, or at least survivable, to each other so that they might hook up.
If gays were busy getting married themselves, do you think they’d have time to preen the rest of us? We’d all be back in the trailer park in our overalls, picking scabs off our unmoisturized faces and wondering why the phone doesn’t ring. It is only because gays can’t marry that they get caught up at all in the romance and filigree of heterosexual marriage, and they’d be off us like fleas off a wet dog if they could go to weddings that didn’t depend upon our breeder antics. It’s not just marriage, but the very survival of the species that depends upon gays being forcibly kept—by constitutional amendment, if need be—in their role as our eternal best men and bridesmaids.
...
But gay marriage would make a mockery of marriage! And that’s the job of heterosexuals, right? Can they possibly screw it up worse than straight folks? The divorce rate’s higher than 50 percent, and couples are bailing out of marriages quicker than ever; something like 60 percent of married men and 40 percent of married women have extramarital affairs; and their kids who aren’t busy shooting their classmates are packed with so many pills they sound like maracas when you shake them.
...
But for all of history, marriage has meant the sacred bond between a man and a woman! Except for when it meant a man and several women, or a man and a woman and his deceased brother’s wife, or a man and his slave, which wasn’t significantly different from being his wife since women were chattel with no say in their own lives and certainly no vote. Let’s be guided in all things by historical precedent, shall we? I’ll go lock up the slaves and child laborers while you go get the horse—but don’t hook no buggy to it because that ain’t how we done things—and we’ll go downtown and shout down those apostates trying to introduce antibiotics, electricity, pavement, baseball and all that other newfangled nonsense.
But what about the Bible? Oh, you mean the part where Jesus chased the gays from the temple with a stick? Hold on, I read that wrong: it was the money changers Jesus was after, suggesting that today he’d be whacking heads on Wall Street not Christopher Street. But what about the time he berated the mob of gay people? Oops, sorry, it wasn’t gays; it was a mob of judgmental zealots that he told off, remember, when he admonished that only he who was without sin should cast the first stone.
