 |
 |
Tuesday, Mar. 30, 2004 - 7:32 p.m.
The Old Ball and Chain
Homosexuals are now getting legally married just a two hours drive north of Eugene. The liberals are all celebrating this as a great advance in social progress. I’m wincing at their naïvity.
First, why do you want the government to know about your intimate relationships? Why do you feel better after getting a seal of approval from a gang that enforces its will through threats and violence? Do you really want the government having a record of the identities of homosexuals? Remember the Holocaust. Sure, there’s the legal benefits, but I see that as perhaps cause for a sigh of relief, not celebration. Congrats. Now you get to fully and equally plug into a system of alienation just like all the other zombies. Enjoy.
Second, any advance you can get through government is ephemeral. I mean, sure, everything is ephemeral, but laws are much more so. They’re just words. A change in political climate can sweep it all away in the blink of an eye, as it did to welfare a few years ago. Forcing the homophobic subjects of the government to acknowledge gay marriages against their will could eventually backfire, perhaps in the form of Bush’s Constitutional ammendment. Changing laws can be faster and easier than changing hearts and minds, but the roots are shallow.
Here’s an email joke my father forwarded me, which I think inadvertently raises some good points:
>San Francisco Logic (A scene at City Hall in San Francisco)
>
>"Next." Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license."
>
>""Names?" "Tim and Jim Jones."
>
>"Jones: Are you related? I see a resemblance."
>
>"Yes, we're brothers."
>
>"Brothers: You can't get married."
>
>"Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?"
>
>"Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!"
>
>"Incest?" No, we are not gay."
>
>"Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?"
>
>"For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other.=20
>Besides, we don't have any other prospects."
>
>"But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who've=20
>been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you
>can get married to a woman."
>
>"Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I=20
>have. But just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry a=20
>woman. I want to marry Jim."
>
>"And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us
>just because we are not gay?"
>
>"All right, all right. I'll give you your license. Next."
>
>"Hi. We are here to get married."
>
>"Names?"
>
>"John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson."
>
>"Who wants to marry whom?"
>
>"We all want to marry each other."
>
>"But there are four of you!"
>
>"That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert,
>Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June
>and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can=20
>express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship."
>
>"But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples."
>
>"So you're discriminating against bisexuals!"
>
>"No, it's just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that
>it's just for couples."
>
>"Since when are you standing on tradition?"
>
>"Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere."
>
>"Who says? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples.
>The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the=20
>constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a=20
>marriage license!"
>
>"All right, all right. Next."
>
>"Hello, I'd like a marriage license."
>
>"In what names?"
>
>"David Deets."
>
>"And the other man?"
>
>"That's all. I want to marry myself."
>
>"Marry yourself? What do you mean?"
>
>"Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to
>marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return."
>
>"That does it! I quit!! You people are making a mockery of marriage!
The Attorney General of Nebraska recently said, “Does that mean you have to allow a man to marry his pet or a man to marry his chair?”
Aside from his sexist presumption that only men are the initiators of marriage, I say bring it on. Marry anyone or anything at any time for any reason. Why not?
The sanctity of the institution of marriage was destroyed long ago by rampant divorce. That is, if it had any sanctity to begin with. Marriage is reification, reducing the richness of lived experience to cold, dead, impoverished language. Marriage is also obligation, the supression of what people feel and want in the present in order to serve promises made in the past. People need meaningful communication and mutually beneficial relationships (whether sexual or otherwise), not labels, rituals, obligations, and government paperwork.
Go ahead, have a long-term relationship if that tickles your fancy.
But don’t get married.
Debut - Monday, Apr. 11, 2005
Sequential Art - Monday, Mar. 21, 2005
Alpha and Omega - Tuesday, Jan. 11, 2005
Faith No More - Friday, Dec. 24, 2004
|
|
|