Pa. - Gay Marriage: Feel the Hate

[Bgno64]

http://local.lancasteronline.com/4/23345

It was Hate the Gay Week last week, as Republican politicians kowtowed en masse to the radical right-wingers who insist that we need to rewrite the Constitution to prevent those uppity queers from getting hitched.

Nationally, the bid to ban gay marriage couldn’t even muster a majority in the U.S. Senate, but here in Pennsylvania the state House passed a bill sponsored by state Rep. Scott Boyd by a margin of more than 2-1. Now the state Senate will take up the measure, and I’ve little doubt that senators, too, will vote to Hate the Gay. Then both houses have to pass the measure again next session to get it on the ballot, so that voters can have their own chance to Hate the Gay.

So much hate, so little time.

No, no, no, say those who support this nonsense, this isn’t all about hate. And that’s true: It’s also about fear — fear that permitting gay unions will somehow undermine the traditional family.

That’s an interesting argument, so let’s debate it. Exactly how would gay unions undermine the traditional family? Would they cause the divorce rate to spike, will it put more kids at risk? Has that happened in Massachusetts or San Francisco?

Where’s the evidence?

There isn’t any, is there?

So instead we get hysterical rhetoric and invocations from on high. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had someone e-mail me, quoting Leviticus. And when I respond by asking them if they observe all aspects of Leviticus — like the prohibition against wearing clothing woven from two kinds of fiber, such as cotton and polyester — I never hear from them again.

Good thing the Bible so briefly condemns homosexuality, as it provides these folks with a justification for their existing prejudices.

As for the politicians, Hating the Gay has less to do with morality than expediency. The president, who had forgotten all about Hating the Gay, suddenly remembered what a vital issue it was.

Gee, this wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that it’s an election year, would it?

Rep. Boyd even admitted during debate on the floor of the state House that, “The relationship of a gay couple will have no impact on my close to 28 years of happily married bliss.” And he’s previously denied any desire to discriminate against gays. Rather, he says, this is all about letting Pennsylvanians define “marriage” for themselves.

And that might be a noble sentiment, if there weren’t more to the story.

See, Boyd is rumored to have aspirations. One of these days, state Sen. Gibson Armstrong is going to retire, and when he does, there will be a rugby scrum to replace him. Boyd is said to be interested. So how might he go about separating himself from the crowd?

Why, by throwing red meat to the social conservatives now and getting them firmly in his corner. And while he’s at it, he can do the state GOP itself a big favor by diverting attention from the pay raise and other issues that have riled voters.

That’s what you call getting a leg up by keeping the gays down.

Evil lib’ruls like me are chided for being on the wrong side of the cultural divide, but I’d rather be on the right side of history. A generation from now, people will look back and recognize this sense of resentment as the same virulent fear of change and petulant tribalism that came to the defense of slavery and segregation. It’s that particular American heart of darkness, where we teach our children that all men are created equal, then pass laws to ensure they aren’t.

But in the meantime, if Pennsylvania decides to formally Hate the Gay, let me be the first to suggest that adding an amendment isn’t enough; we may also need to add an asterisk to Section 1, which defines the “Inherent Rights of Mankind”:

All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness.*

*Some restrictions may apply.

Gil Smart is associate editor of the Sunday News. E-mail him at [e-mail] or phone [phone].

[bbernardini]

1. Holy crap, this was in LANCASTER?!?

Good for him! I'm right on the border between Chester and Lancaster counties. Not an easy place to be a liberal.

[bumblebee1]

2. Gil Smart writes a lot of great editorials.

I know what you mean about it being hard to be a liberal in Lancaster County.

[bbernardini]

3. Check out the ignorance in the comments. nt

[tll]

4. oh yes, interesting timing... election year

All I want for Christmas is for my "ew! gay cooties!" legislators to grow the fuck up.

Sure "many Pennsylvanians" might allegedly support this, but lay it on the table next to secure employment prospects that pay a living wage, healthcare, transportation, education and childcare (and other societal supports that facilitate raising a kid)... then ask these Pennsylvanians to prioritize.

But my favorite part is when these alleged mom (but only one of 'em!) and apple pie, traditional family (TM) values folks whine "but they're imposing their lifestyle on us!"

Um, how?

And so Rep. Good Christian's solution is to legislate his values on them? And on those of us who aren't feeling particularly threatened or shocked by the notion of same sex couples having the same rights and protections as Ward and June Cleaver?

Explain to me how that works again? And never mind the unintended consequences other situations where relationships deserve or require legal standing, rights and protections.

Here's my compromise for these folks. Bear in mind, my new way of putting this issue to Family Values (TM) folks (often thrice-divorced and living in sin while blathering on about the sancitity of marriage) is still under development.

"At the end of the day, gay marriage has nothing to do with you.

It has nothing to do with me.

It has nothing to do with your church.

As much as I may disagree with or be disappointed by your views, I'm not asking you change your beliefs. I'm not asking your church to change its teachings or who it marries or what relationships it chooses to recognize.

What I am asking the Commonwealth to do (or not rule out doing) is grant the same rights and protections that heterosexual couples enjoy to same-sex couples who are in the same sort of committed, long-term relationships. The same people, having the same relationships, who were here, are here and will continue to be here no matter what.

In short, peaceful coexistance.

If the gay couple, who've been living next door for the past ten years, suddenly came home with a piece of paper from the courthouse, how would your life change?

Excepting the initial media circus, would you even really notice?

See what I mean by a non-issue? "

As an aside...Hell, come to think of it, my parents got married at the courthouse. And I don't think our church technically considered it "real" either. Gee, does that make me illegitimate? How about anybody who got married in Vegas?