Tuesday, June 28, 2005

And now onto everyone’s favorite topic: Gay Marriage…

Recently, I’ve been asked about my take on this issue, particularly in light of the Canadian government’s efforts to legalize it (you can stop sending me news items on the subject now, Mother). Not being a religious person, I have no default position to fall back on in lieu of rational consideration of the facts. Instead, I turn to a question posed by radio talk show host Neal Boortz. To paraphrase Neal, I need only to ask myself, “How does gay marriage infringe upon my personal liberty?” After some thought, I concluded that it does not, therefore I am not opposed to gay marriage.

That’s not to say I’m head over heels in support of the idea either. The thought of two guys playing Hide the Hammer makes me want to gag. Then again, so do all those people who think defecating on each other is the epitome of tantalizing foreplay. Gay or not, that’s just sick and wrong! My feelings on that matter aside, the real question here is if the straight fudge eaters have the right to marry, why not the gay fudge packers?

Being a Republican, I have heard the well-worn prime argument against gay marriage, namely the preservation of the institution’s sanctity. Frankly, I believe that is a lost cause. Any sanctity marriage had left was diluted long ago with the loosening of divorce laws. The corollary argument that marriage is a key societal institution that serves to strengthen the family unit is a weak one, as well. People are free to marry at will regardless of their intent or ability to procreate. Our society has evolved to the point where people are not primarily compelled by some inherent drive to marry, nor are they subjected to pangs of shame when they divorce. Marriage is simply not the bedrock it once was.

The one valid point I have heard from my political simpaticos is that by opening the laws up to such a large redefinition of marriage there really is no turning back; the books remain open to further redefinition, ad infinitum. Who's to say that after Parliament passes this legislation there won't be calls by polygamist sects to further redefine the institution to include multiple marriage, as well? Gay Rights groups don't like this line of reasoning because they prefer not to be compared to polygamists, who many still consider to be deviant cultists. Deviant or not, the polygamists can lobby for their redefinition on the exact same grounds the homosexuals used. Just because the gays are better organized than the polygamists in promoting their cause doesn't make the polygamists' case any less valid. Nor does the fact that most people think polygamy is wrong. Polls show most people also think homosexual marriage is wrong, so why should the gays get to marry freely when the polygamists should not?

Are you happy now, Mom? In a few short paragraphs you’ve got me in bed with both the homosexuals and the multisexuals. What a weird week this is turning out to be.


Post a Comment

<< Home