Tag Archives: gay marriage

Temporary Aberrations…

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.”

Sad, indeed.

Leave a comment

Posted by on September 30, 2011 in Political Theatre


Tags: ,

The Victims of Equality…

On July 24, gays in NY will have the ability to legally marry whoever they choose and in the process deny innocent citizens of their God-given right to deprive them of this basic bit of dignity. I suppose when you don’t think about it very hard, it is a tragedy.

The New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms group — a curious name for an anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage organization but there were no runners in Dexys Midnight Runners, either — has set up a self-styled “Courage Fund” for victims of marriage equality, which includes Laura Fotusky, a town clerk in Barker N.Y., who resigned rather than violate her religious beliefs by signing a marriage certificate for a gay couple. Apparently, this is Laura Fotusky’s House of Marriage Licenses (“ask for them by name!”) and gay unions are the Chinatown knock-offs that will devalue her brand.

Gays are apparently not satisfied with robbing Fotusky of all the glitz and glamour associated with her high-stakes position as a town clerk for someplace I just learned about today. They have also targeted Granby NY clerk Ruth Sheldon and Barbara MacEwen, who graciously stated that she didn’t mind her office issuing the licenses to gays, she just didn’t want to sign the designer imposter certificates.

The “Courage Fund” however is set up to protect these individuals who face the hardship of losing their jobs beause they don’t wish to do their jobs:

The New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms website says that the fund exists to “assist courageous municipal clerks and other people of conscience in New York State who oppose same-sex ‘marriage’ from harassment, denial of rightful promotion, or unfair termination for invoking New York State law protecting their sincerely-held religious beliefs.”

Rosemary Centi, another NY clerk who is resigning, has performed “hundreds” of wedding. She told The NY Post’s Andrea Peyser that “I am Catholic… my definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. It is a sacrament.”

Centi is under the mistaken impression that she was performing a religious service. This was a legal contract, and if she performed hundreds of these “sacraments,” there had to have been some stinkers in there: Twentysomething model marrying decrepit millionaire on life support; embezzling hedge fund manager tying the knot with his assistant so she won’t have to testify against him at the trial; anything involving Kelsey Grammer. Did she investigate any of these couples to ensure they were worthy of her? Or is it merely that heterosexual unions, while ocassionally going wrong, have the potential to be great and homosexual unions, by definition, do not.

“I have a number of friends whom I adore” who are gay, Centi told (Peyser). “I respect an individual’s right to live their life however they chose to do.” She paused. “So I would expect the same courtesy.”

Is this really the moral conundrum people are making it? Gays don’t care what Centi thinks of gay marriage. They don’t care that she chooses to resign her job rather than perform a gay marriage. And they probably don’t care that the “number” of gay friends Centi has is either a dubious assertion or cast members on “Project Runway.” Put this way: If Centi were a vegan, those of us who eat meat would respect her choice. If she worked at McDonald’s and they suddenly started serving actual meat, we would not have an issue with her finding another line of work. We would have an issue if she kept her job but refused to make the burgers.

Bronx DJ Clifton McLaughlin also refuses to make the burgers. In Peyser’s piece, he says he won’t spin the slow jams at a gay wedding.

“This is based on God’s law,” McLaughlin told (Peyser). “There is no way man can come with his own law.”

I think he also overstates his role here. The DJ is not one of the twelve apostles. He’s the entertainment. Also, there’s a good chance he’s worked at a mob daughter’s wedding. As long as he doesn’t play the “Electric Slide,” God will not judge him for his participation.

The Wildflower Inn turned away a lesbian couple recently because the innkeepers did not allow same-sex weddings on the site. Perhaps the misperception here is that you have to attend every wedding held at your space or even like the people who are giving you business. This is a more clear-cut violation of public accomodations laws, so I anticipate the owners Jim and Mary O’Reilly being sued into the Phantom Zone.

Peyser and the New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms (*just not yours) lament the apparent inability of people to enjoy freedom of religion in their own state. Granted, if your religion included illegal activities (e.g. ritual sacrifice or line dancing), you could not hide behind your faith in those instances. And in their rush to drape themselves in the cloth of civil rights terminology (i.e. “concientious objectors”), they should take the time to read their history and see that such acts never came without sacrifice. Their wish to defy the law without consequence or discriminate without repudiation is a rather craven fantasy.


Posted by on July 21, 2011 in Political Theatre


Tags: ,