Column.
The following is this week's submission to the Gazette.
Unbelievable snowstorm this morning. A three-hour commute from Woodbury to Minneapolis: 20 miles. My wife got hit-and-run by a moron in a minivan; no injuries nor major damage, but still...
Anyway, here you go.
COLUMN O' THE WEEK
It’s inexcusable that in post 9/11 America politicians are more concerned with defending marriage than defending the borders. Osama bin Laden could have ridden in from Mexico City on a Macy’s parade float ages ago undetected by authorities, yet elected officials are debating more pressing matters, namely protecting marriage at all costs from pesky homosexuals.
Gay people can’t win. They were lambasted when going from one anonymous bathhouse tryst to the next in the halcyon days of the 70’s, and now they’re picked on for giving monogamy a shot. Wait a minute: A period of wanton promiscuity followed by a desire for lifelong commitment? Sounds like every heterosexual person I’ve ever known.
The arguments proffered by the defense-of-marriage crowd defy logic. One of these is the propagation theory: “Marriage exists to ensure the survival of the human race.” America’s spiraling single motherhood rate seems to indicate that a large number of sperm and eggs didn’t get the memorandum dictating that fertilization without commitment is prohibited. The absence of a wedding band has no demonstrated prophylactic qualities, so we can safely put that argument to rest.
I’ve yet to hear a single advocate of the propagation theory explain exactly what humanity has done to deserve survival in the first place. Our most notable accomplishment as a species is broadcasting 50 years’ worth of sitcoms into the Universe. Methinks that’s legacy enough. Many people believe that homosexuals’ biological inability to produce the next Jim Belushi should automatically guarantee them equal—if not special—rights.
Then there’s this pearl of wisdom offered by many defense-of-marriage advocates: “Gay marriage?” they ask with straight (pun intended) faces, “What’s next: People marrying animals?”
Incredibly, the “bestiality slippery slope” argument constitutes a valid defense-of-marriage stance, most notably on radio talk shows where the only evolutionary prerequisite for callers is having an opposable thumb allowing operation of a cell phone. As if human/animal unions are a logical leap from gay marriage. Mainstream America is still clutching the beads over the prospect of gay cowboys. Imagine the furor if one of them, at the pivotal moment, forsook his lover in favor of his horse. Move aside, Brokeback Mountain: It’s time for Bareback Mountin’.
It may surprise and anger some readers to learn that I in fact do not advocate gay marriage. Rather, I support some sort of civil union between homosexuals guaranteeing them all the legal, financial and survivorship rights and privileges granted to heterosexual married couples.
I don’t believe there’s anything sinful about love. Conversely there’s nothing hateful about tradition. Defining marriage as between one man and one woman does not equate to discrimination. Gay people are welcome to brainstorm a unique name for their brand of “marriage” at which point we can put it in Webster’s Dictionary and move on to the next social crisis.
Frankly I find it a bit queer—pardon the expression—that gays are so gung-ho about jumping on the marriage bandwagon in the first place. Demanding the right to participate in an institution with a 50% failure rate is like calling your broker and insisting he buy Enron stock.
If the defense-of-marriage people truly want to maintain the sanctity of the institution they should advocate a simple, twofold plan to reduce the divorce rate. First, enact a minimum age for marriage. This very newspaper regularly features photos of young couples marrying their high school sweethearts before they’re old enough to legally enjoy a champagne toast at their wedding reception. Here’s a news flash for you swooning kids: See those lights on the horizon? That’s not the Aurora Borealis. That’s the glow of two large cities with a combined population of a million people. Do yourself a favor and meet some of them before settling for Brad from Trigonometry class.
Second, the defense-of-marriage types need to realize that marriage is a contract, and as such should be renewable rather than lifelong. I propose five-year increments with contract riders added as the couple gets better acquainted. For instance: “(John Doe) agrees to leave the toilet seat down and empty the dishwasher thrice weekly, in return for which (Jane Doe) agrees to increase the potential for intimacy from twice to four times per week.”
Okay, okay: Three times. But I want an Internet pornography immunity clause added.
The bottom line is that gay or straight, anyone considering marriage should be committed. And just like the definition of marriage and the constitution, that statement can be interpreted any way you like.
Unbelievable snowstorm this morning. A three-hour commute from Woodbury to Minneapolis: 20 miles. My wife got hit-and-run by a moron in a minivan; no injuries nor major damage, but still...
Anyway, here you go.
COLUMN O' THE WEEKIt’s inexcusable that in post 9/11 America politicians are more concerned with defending marriage than defending the borders. Osama bin Laden could have ridden in from Mexico City on a Macy’s parade float ages ago undetected by authorities, yet elected officials are debating more pressing matters, namely protecting marriage at all costs from pesky homosexuals.
Gay people can’t win. They were lambasted when going from one anonymous bathhouse tryst to the next in the halcyon days of the 70’s, and now they’re picked on for giving monogamy a shot. Wait a minute: A period of wanton promiscuity followed by a desire for lifelong commitment? Sounds like every heterosexual person I’ve ever known.
The arguments proffered by the defense-of-marriage crowd defy logic. One of these is the propagation theory: “Marriage exists to ensure the survival of the human race.” America’s spiraling single motherhood rate seems to indicate that a large number of sperm and eggs didn’t get the memorandum dictating that fertilization without commitment is prohibited. The absence of a wedding band has no demonstrated prophylactic qualities, so we can safely put that argument to rest.
I’ve yet to hear a single advocate of the propagation theory explain exactly what humanity has done to deserve survival in the first place. Our most notable accomplishment as a species is broadcasting 50 years’ worth of sitcoms into the Universe. Methinks that’s legacy enough. Many people believe that homosexuals’ biological inability to produce the next Jim Belushi should automatically guarantee them equal—if not special—rights.
Then there’s this pearl of wisdom offered by many defense-of-marriage advocates: “Gay marriage?” they ask with straight (pun intended) faces, “What’s next: People marrying animals?”
Incredibly, the “bestiality slippery slope” argument constitutes a valid defense-of-marriage stance, most notably on radio talk shows where the only evolutionary prerequisite for callers is having an opposable thumb allowing operation of a cell phone. As if human/animal unions are a logical leap from gay marriage. Mainstream America is still clutching the beads over the prospect of gay cowboys. Imagine the furor if one of them, at the pivotal moment, forsook his lover in favor of his horse. Move aside, Brokeback Mountain: It’s time for Bareback Mountin’.
It may surprise and anger some readers to learn that I in fact do not advocate gay marriage. Rather, I support some sort of civil union between homosexuals guaranteeing them all the legal, financial and survivorship rights and privileges granted to heterosexual married couples.
I don’t believe there’s anything sinful about love. Conversely there’s nothing hateful about tradition. Defining marriage as between one man and one woman does not equate to discrimination. Gay people are welcome to brainstorm a unique name for their brand of “marriage” at which point we can put it in Webster’s Dictionary and move on to the next social crisis.
Frankly I find it a bit queer—pardon the expression—that gays are so gung-ho about jumping on the marriage bandwagon in the first place. Demanding the right to participate in an institution with a 50% failure rate is like calling your broker and insisting he buy Enron stock.
If the defense-of-marriage people truly want to maintain the sanctity of the institution they should advocate a simple, twofold plan to reduce the divorce rate. First, enact a minimum age for marriage. This very newspaper regularly features photos of young couples marrying their high school sweethearts before they’re old enough to legally enjoy a champagne toast at their wedding reception. Here’s a news flash for you swooning kids: See those lights on the horizon? That’s not the Aurora Borealis. That’s the glow of two large cities with a combined population of a million people. Do yourself a favor and meet some of them before settling for Brad from Trigonometry class.
Second, the defense-of-marriage types need to realize that marriage is a contract, and as such should be renewable rather than lifelong. I propose five-year increments with contract riders added as the couple gets better acquainted. For instance: “(John Doe) agrees to leave the toilet seat down and empty the dishwasher thrice weekly, in return for which (Jane Doe) agrees to increase the potential for intimacy from twice to four times per week.”
Okay, okay: Three times. But I want an Internet pornography immunity clause added.
The bottom line is that gay or straight, anyone considering marriage should be committed. And just like the definition of marriage and the constitution, that statement can be interpreted any way you like.
posted by Admin Worm at 10:16 AM
<< Home