Newt Gingrich, former House Speaker and current failed presidential candidate, made the following comment about gay marriage.
“I believe that marriage is between a man and woman,” Gingrich said, the Des Moines Register reports. “It has been for all of recorded history and I think this is a temporary aberration that will dissipate. I think that it is just fundamentally goes against everything we know.”
Sometimes I think the true “temporary aberration” is the United States itself, which produces bigots as if they are the country’s chief export.
Gingrich is not the only GOP presidential candidate to appeal to “recorded history” regarding gay marriage. Let’s check in with everyone’s favorite Congressional representative and mental patient Michele Bachmann, who said in 2004:
“You have a teacher talking about his gayness. (The elementary school student) goes home then and says “Mom! What’s gayness? We had a teacher talking about this today.” The mother says “Well, that’s when a man likes other men, and they don’t like girls.” The boy’s eight. He’s thinking, “Hmm. I don’t like girls. I like boys. Maybe I’m gay.” And you think, “Oh, that’s, that’s way out there. The kid isn’t gonna think that.” Are you kidding? That happens all the time. You don’t think that this is intentional, the message that’s being given to these kids? That’s child abuse.”
Sorry, this quote doesn’t directly reference gay marriage. It’s just dumb. Sure, the 8-year-old boy is now a committed homosexual (just as I was a committed ninja at that age) until his female classmate shows up one day with breasts. If a boy can pass the breast test, then he deserves his gay honor badge, but hearing that his teacher is gay is not going to make him gay. Gayness is not spread through auditory contact. If that was the case, then everyone who listened to “Livin’ la Vida Loca” in 1999 would be gay.
Anyway, a more relevant quote from Bachmann during a recent appearance on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno.
“The family is foundational and marriage between a man and a woman is what the law has been for years..”
Got that? So, gays can’t marry because that’s been the law for years and we can’t change the law because gays have historically not been able to marry.
That’s probably why it took so long for the self-proclaimed-but-rarely-in-actuality “land of the free” to end its “peculiar institution.” “We can’t free negroes because they are slaves and slavery has existed for centuries and is the foundation of our economy.”
There’s the other rub — end slavery and some lazy white people might have to work. What would happen to Scarlett’s hands if she had to wash her own gowns? Gays marrying has no impact on the economic health of the U.S. Empire. So, the anti-gay marriage position does not even have the virtue of selfishness.
Also, put a powdered wig on Gingrich — though I think that’s what he’s already wearing — and he could be arguing against female suffrage: “I believe that only men can vote because I say so with no facts to back it up. I believe the suffrage movement is a temporary aberration that will dissipate. It goes against everything we’ve ever known.”
Gay marriage has probably existed throughout recorded history, even if not legally recognized as such. The attempt by people like Gingrich and Bachmann is to legislate homosexuality out of existence — the legal equivalent of putting their hands over their ears and shouting, “La, La, La, I can’t hear gay people being gay around me.” They also simultaneously promote family values while denying that gays can have families, so homosexuality remains on the margins of society. This is how you ensure they remain second-class citizens. And “converting” to heterosexuality won’t help. It’s similar to the Jews and Muslims who converted under pressure to Roman Catholicism in Portugal. They were dubbed “New Christians” as a means of distinguishing them from the “Old Christians.” And they were always under suspicion.
Gingrich has already expressed his concerns:
“I think there is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us, is prepared to use violence, to use harassment. I think it is prepared to use the government if it can get control of it. I think that it is a very dangerous threat to anybody who believes in traditional religion.”
But Bachmann is more sympathetic — if not sort of sinisterly condescending — of the “New Heterosexuals“:
“And again, don’t misunderstand. I am not here bashing people who are homosexuals, who are lesbians, who are bisexual, who are transgendered. We need to have profound compassion for the people who are dealing with the very real issue of sexual dysfunction in their life, and sexual identity disorders. This is a very real issue. It’s not funny, it’s sad.”