The subject of gay marriage is currently getting a workout all over the bloggy world.
The Pope’s denounced it, which by me matters about as much as his recent addition of five new Mysteries to be said on the Rosary every Thursday. I figure that if the OHC&A Church isn’t ready to recognize gay marriage, it doesn’t have to. Lord knows there are plenty of other marriages it doesn’t recognize; mine, for instance. And if you personally aren’t in favor of marrying gays, don’t marry one. (I’m of the school that thinks that someone else’s gender preferences are only your business if you’re thinking of making a pass at them. If not, not.)
Meanwhile, Dubya has also denounced gay marriage. And get this: he wants to “codify”, via a constitutional amendment, the principle that marriage is by definition a union between one man and one woman. Which can’t be right, since that would mean that my great-great-grandparents weren’t married, or anyway that my great-great-grandfather wasn’t married to his plural wives, which he most certainly was.
But I’m sure ol’ Georgie Boy didn’t think that through. What he’s supposedly on about here is the horrid possibility that persons of the same sex might marry each other, as has been deemed legal in Canada.
I think he’s going about this all wrong. The Constitution just isn’t the place for that kind of thing. If you’re going to specify that marriage is only a cross-gender phenomenon, one man one woman, you’re going to have to spell out what that means; and isn’t that going to look nice, in amongst the provisions of that hitherto dignified document? Next thing you know, people won’t be wanting their kids to read the Constitution on account of its racy passages.
On top of that, Georgie’s got one of his henchmen out there explaining that he’s just trying to to protect “the sanctity of marriage”. Dead wrong. Matters of sanctity are definitely not within the Constitution’s bailiwick. If Dubya wants to get something sanctified, he should talk to the Pope.
But what I really think is that Bush & Co. are turning gay marriage into another one of those pointless flustering non-issues like flag-burning, or prayer in the schools, that get everyone excited but make zero difference. These non-issues are deployed in order to soak up any additional brainpower the American people might otherwise be tempted to spend on issues like the economy, or what became of those WMDs. It’ll be good for months and months of content-free fuss and botheration.
We aren’t going to draft and ratify a full-scale amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, saying that only cross-gender marriages count. Neither are we going to throw up our hands, say “Oh well, if Canada’s going to do it, we’d better follow along,” declare gay marriage legal in all fifty states, and accept that for a while we’re going to be up to our ears in matching tuxedos and dishes of adorable little triangular pink mints.
It’s a shame, really. All those weddings would be a lot of fun.
But it’s not going to happen. This fuss about banning gay marriage via constitutional amendment is just a piece of handwaving flapdoodle, specially cooked up for the election season. If it weren’t for that, the Republicans wouldn’t give a damn either way. They have a history of getting along just fine with gays who are sufficiently rich, powerful, and well-connected. It’s the poor ones they can’t stand.