Thursday, March 11, 2004

Happy Gays Are Here Again

It's that time of the month again—time for the Mass. State Legislature to meet once more and have a friendly little chat about the homos. I can't believe all these bigwig politicos are taking time out of their busy busy pork-barreling schedules on account of li'l ole me. Like, I'm blushing! I just can't help it, I lurve it when a bunch of straight people get together to decide how much gay people are worth!

No one's quite sure exactly what the Massachusetts Legislature is doing today in their little Constitutional Convention (a.k.a. "ConCon," no pun intended). As far as I can tell, they're reconvening to vote on whether to vote again to lead to another vote, by the people this time, on an amendment to the state constitution barring gay people from marrying, but only if they are the same sex, and only if it won't be recognized outside the state, or wait yes it can, or maybe we want civil unions, and what does the church have to s—ack, who knows. Enshrining bigotry in the constitution is so complicated! What happened to the good ole days, when bigots could just go and lynch someone they didn't like? Oh wait, that still happens.

There's lots of chatter about what the outcome of today's events will be—some predict a civil unions push, others say it's still split down the middle—but frankly I don't really understand what all the fuss is about. No matter what does or doesn't get passed today, the court has said (twice!) that gay people can apply for full marriage licenses come May 17, 2004; short of physically barring a gay couple from entering a license office, there's little anyone can do to stop gay marriage right now. And even if an anti-gay bill/amendment passes today, it's only the first step in a very long process: because of ratification laws, the very earliest such a bill/amendment could go up for vote by citizens (the last step before ratification) is in 2006—nearly 2.5 years after gay people will have been recognized as full citizens and allowed to marry each other.

By that time, of course, homophobes say the world will have come to an end and aborted fetuses will be fornicating with their brothers and sisters among the smoldering ruins of our civilization, all thanks to gay marriage. More likely, though, is a social landscape much like, say, the Netherlands today, which this month celebrates 2.5 years since same-sex marriage was first legalized in the country. According to that linked Washington Post article examining how the country is today, it turns out little, if anything, has changed because of the Dutch government's historic September 2001 marriage decision (the first in history): weddings, divorces, pre-nups, honeymoons, alimony, all that boring crap continues as always, and life goes on with hardly anyone batting an eyelash about gay people. That's right, no polygamists or pedophiles have come forward demanding their right to marry in odd/illegal combinations. Dogs and sheep remain unwed to their masters (or each other). The LORD YOUR GOD JEHOVAH has not rained down the fires of hell upon the peoples of Sodom, etc. Some Nederlander officials still refuse to wed same-sex couples (the law says they have that right), so couples just go to someone else, no problem.....<Sigh> We can only hope.

Actually, I won't lie: deep down I am opposed to same-sex marriage. You see, I actually support the proposed amendment that would "define marriage as between one man and one woman, or two hot women." SO HOTTT! Though in general I find having to associate with the lezzie dyke doughnut-bumpers to be an unfortunate side effect of being of the gay persuasion, I'm actually really excited about this amendment because—as the article mentions—how awesome will it be if the word twat makes it into the Constitution? [Via the always hilarious Ken at Durhey]

....OK, so the so-called "two hot women" amendment is (sadly) a complete satire, but methinks the talentless 50 Cent must have taken it as fact, as he told Playboy this month that he really loves lesbians but he "ain't into faggots. I don't like gay people around me, because I'm not comfortable with what their thoughts are. I'm not prejudiced. I just don't go with gay people and kick it—we don't have that much in common. I'd rather hang out with some straight dude." To which Strom Thurmond replied: "I ain't into niggers. I don't like black people around me, because I'm not comfortable with what their thoughts are or how I might get shot by a gangbanger if I stand too close to them. I'm not prejudiced. I just don't go with the coloreds and kick it—we don't have that much in common, since I'm not from the ghetto. I'd rather hang out with some white dude."

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home