Wednesday, February 25, 2004

Up on the Soap Box with Old Saint WULAD
You’ve all heard me speak critically of Mayor Gav-o’s recent decision to ride the rapids of civil disobedience—not because I think he’s wrong, but because I think the timing is lousy. Bush is behind in polls, running scared on almost every issue and with credibility at an all-time low; and Newsome hands him an issue on which something like 65% of the population agrees with him. (Although he probably would have come out with this amendment crap anyway in response to the “activist judges” over in Massachussetts.)

The Republicans have frequently used divisive social issues like gay rights and abortion to distract people from realizing that they overwhelmingly support Democratic positions on the economy, the environment, global affairs, taxes, civil rights, etc. The idea seems to be to get Joe Six-pack to think, “Well, Dubya may be a lyin’ theivin’ corrupt bastard, but at least he’s protectin’ our treasured social fabric from them dastardly committed domestic pre-verts. And he likes NASCAR.”

I also felt that the inability of gays and lesbians to marry, while unjust, would probably be rectified within the next generation, and was not hurting anybody in a concrete way in the meantime—that is, compared to the cost of the environmental destruction, economic malfeasance, erosion of liberties, and wars for profit that are sure to continue under a second Bush regime.

(I recognize the exceptions are the legal and civil disadvantages unmarried gay couples face, but I believe the public is much more receptive at this time to correcting those inequities through “civil unions,” etc., which is what candidate Kerry—wisely, I believe, for now—has endorsed.)

But then comes the reaction from seeing happy people actually getting married (including some whom I know and wish good things for), and it’s hard to tell them that they should put their lives on hold for even another day, because it’s not politically expedient.

"Only a constitutional amendment can now assure that marriage between a woman and a man, and the family they raise, can remain into the future a foundational element of our society,'' [San Francisco Catholic Archbishop William] Levada said.
Yep, if we allow these loving couples to tie the knot, it’ll be the death knell for two-parent heterosexual families. I can just see John and Jane Q. Public watching the news: “Honey, did you see that they're letting the gays get married?”

“Damn. I guess we might as well forget this family shit now. Do you want to tell Junior or should I?”

I guess the point of all this is that I wish people in this country weren’t so damn attached to their precious prejudices and could just look at something for what it is once in a while. (And the sky is blue and fighting is bad and the Pope is Catholic, despite what the guy from Mad Max says.)

But wouldn’t it be great if Bush made his principled stand for his approved version of The American Family®…

…and lost anyway?