Thursday, December 03, 2009

Gay Confusion (Gayfusion?)

There seems to be a strange non-inertia inertia the whole marriage equality thing - particulalry since, as Sully points out HERE, there doesn't really seem to be much debate against it after all (as I sexily pointed out over a year ago HERE.) But every coupla months now we have some state stepping up to the plate and doing a kinda dance around the plate without crossing it, but just close enough that you think it is going to happen, and after a while you even think it HAS happened, and then people might get confused by the questionin the first place, and on and on and on until you wake up and nothing been done, and for no apparent reason. and then the whole thing starts up again.

The obvious thought is that the people in the right places aren't having their bellie$ scratched the way they like. I mean for fuck's sake, who's a guy gotta blow to let gay people get married??

Some more past genius:
A coupla months ago HERE I asked readers to send in instances where allowing gays to marry has destroyed their own marriage. I'm still waiting. Of course I'm still waiting fro a lady to write in to be on the Mrs. Xmastime Tour, but hey. I also talked about it HERE:
Then as a last gasp you get some chutterfuck yammering that the Bible says homos can't get married. I'll make a deal with you: if you can bring me a snake that talks, I'll dedicate my life to making sure boys can't kiss each other.

I like all the rallies going on around the country today, I like that they all seem calm and rational and pulse with a sense of "this is going to happen because it's right, we do not doubt this at all." Keep up the fight. It's like I've said all along: I wish all dudes were gay and married - more chicks for me!!!!

1 comment:

Kiko Jones said...

I wish all dudes were gay and married - more chicks for me!!!!

Been sayin' that for years!

Seriously, pragmatically speaking, I think the best and most productive approach would've been to work diligently at getting civil unions to cover all the legal provisions of marriage, and then, to go for approval of gay marriage itself. IMHO, under the cover of civil unions much more could've been accomplished without eliciting the opposing reactions to "marriage". And if the latter did not come to pass, then those interested would've lost the symbolic war but not the actual one, which is to get the same rights as hetero marriages. No?