The fur is really flying today. As you know, the Massachusetts Supreme Court has responded to inquires from the legislature about whether "civil unions" are sufficient to satisfy the requirements of that state's Constitution (which I understand says that all are entitled to equality and that no second-class citizens may be created by the state) with a resounding "no." It's interesting because this is the first time the "separate but equal" aspect of gay unions has been addressed.

And of course there's no shortage of angry religious right morons screaming about "judicial activism" and "black robes" and "unelected" and "legislating from the bench" and all the other usual memes they try to spread. I think they do know better; they probably really do know why judges are appointed rather than elected (it's all about impartiality); I'm sure they know that the judicial branch is meant to be a check and balance on the legislative and executive and that's precisely why the judicial branch throws out bad law. They might not know why judges wear black robes. But they do show disrespect in the extreme for the framework of our government and the judicial branch in particular by spouting their half-truths and outright lies about it.

We've already shown that these radical right wing groups and individuals are acting out of hate or at least a strong anti-gay bias, and they're getting so angry over this issue that they're letting their carefully-crafted guard down. They're starting to show their true colors without even realizing it. One thing of note is that when you hear many of these groups arguing ostensibly against gay marriage, if you listen carefully and analyze what they're saying, then you'll see they're actually trying to argue against gays. Argue against gays all you want, religious extremists; arguing won't stop a single one of them from being born.

Then there are the amusing slippery-slope fundies. I'm sure you've heard these. "If gays can get married, then why can't I marry my dog?" Or perhaps, "if gays can get married, then why can't we have group marriages?" They're asking the wrong question. The real question is, "if heterosexuals can get married, why can't I marry my sheep?" Or, "if heterosexuals can get married, why can't we have group marriages?" The latter questions are no more meaningful than the former. The former questions assume some kind of inherent "wrongness" about gay unions without demonstrating what it is.

Then there are the gay conspiracy theorists. They're sure that gay marriage is part of the gay agenda which also includes taking over all public schools and indoctrinating all children into a lifetime of homosexuality at gunpoint. It hardly seems worthwhile to bother dignifying that sort of fantasy with a response, but allow me just to say this: who recently infiltrated nearly every home in America with an ostentatious display of heterosexuality? Much as I wish Justin Timberlake were gay, he and Janet Jackson's Superbowl™ stunt didn't draw heterosexual-agenda conspiracy theorists out of the woodwork when that heterosexism was patently in front of everyone's faces. If the "gay agenda" means "trying to achieve equality and dump second-class citizen status" then yes, there's a gay agenda. But if it's just a manifestation of religious right paranoia, there's no more a "gay agenda" than there is a "milkman agenda" or a "heterosexual agenda."

Lastly, unelected President George W Bush is said to be considering throwing his support behind a US Constitutional amendment that would prevent gays from every marrying in any state or even achieving benefits similar to marriage (no civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc.). This is President George W. "States Rights" Bush, by the way. It's worth noting that the conservative Massachusetts Supreme Court made its decision without really considering the US Constitution; their decision was based primarily on the Massachusetts state Constitution. That makes their decision one that states have the right to make. It's a states' rights issue. True to form, Bush is showing that he supports states' rights just as long as the state is doing what he wants them to do; as soon as a state makes a decision he doesn't agree with, it's time for the federal government to make a blanket decision for all states. This is a similar tactic to one used by conservative activist courts; they're happy to throw out bad laws all session long, but when it comes time to throw out a bad law with which they personally agree, suddenly they feel it's up to the state legislature to throw the law out and that the judiciary shouldn't step in. This is roughly the position conservative activist judge Clarence Thomas shamefully took in the Lawrence v Texas case. Because he thinks gays are icky, he said it's up to the legislature to throw out the law, but he's joined no shortage of majority opinions throwing out other bad laws. Hypocrisy of this nature should astonish anyone.

There's talk that gay marriage may become some kind of presidential campaign issue this year. If it does, I hope Bush is the instigator; it'll leave him open to attack for making a stink about a relatively minor issue that affects a small number of people while the economy, which is a huge issue affecting nearly everybody, is still in the toilet. If the Democrat nominee is worth his salt, any jabbering by Bush about keeping gays from being married will be an open invitation for relentless attack on Bush's miserable failings as a president.

Bush also isn't fooling anyone with his "everyone is entitled to respect" line. How he can speak in such a self-contradictory fashion and have nobody in the media call him on it amazes me. Time and again he effectively says, "everyone's entitled to respect, but gay people must be held as second-class citizens and not allowed to have their relationships respected in the same way as heterosexuals." So really he's saying that everyone's entitled to respect, but some people are entitled to more respect than others.

When is this country, the "land of the free," going to grow up and join the rest of the modern world in acknowledging that gay people aren't to be treated as second-class citizens? Why are we allowing ourselves to be led into a new dark age by the religious extremists? With the rest of the world moving forward and acknowledging that gays are entitled to respect, why is this country moving backward?

---Nick

vote FOR this article vote AGAINST this article flag as spam/abuse
Log in if you are spatula for more options. 
Find similar articles