Defense of Marriage Act II: The Vendetta

This Whole Gay Marriage Thing

I’ll tell ya, it is finally pissing me off. I haven’t been terrifically invested in the issue because I was never particularly invested in the concept of marriage (as opposed to my specific marriage, which I am totally invested in, but as a relationship more than an institution). I believe in equal rights and equal protection no matter what, but don’t really care how that is achieved; I’m onboard with states throwing open the doors so everyone can get married or getting out of the marriage business and only conferring civil unions that are accessible to anyone, letting the churches do what they want with marriage. Whatever. I want loving couples of any makeup to be able to adopt and share insurance coverage and receive survivor benefits, but as causes go it just has never ranked high on my agenda.

But, the rationales provided when courts in particular (because I expect spun rhetoric from legislatures) uphold gay marriage bans, as they did recently in Washington State, has sufficiently rattled my cage. Because when official bodies, with a straight motherfucking face, start laying out self-righteous arbitrary bullshit, it is information warfare, and the only tactic is to slice up the arguments, peel the skin back, expose the black heart, and feed it to ‘em.

What really gets me is the disingenuous nature of the arguments. If they just stepped forward and said “Listen, we don’t really like gay people and neither do most of the voters, mainly because gay sex skeeves us out and gets our juices flowing at the same time, so we’re just not going to let them marry,” then fine. They're douchebags, but at least douchebags that admit their small-mindedness and petty hate.

But, noooOOOOOOooooo, they gotta go and start talking about procreation, make that the link, play it like a fucking trump card. “Gotcha there! That’s the one thing you fudgepackers and carpetmunchers can’t do, so we’re going to make it the basis of the decision.”

This from the majority opinion in the Washington case: "The Legislature was entitled to believe [when it established the law] that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation is essential to the survival of the human race…” Forget the twaddle about the benefits of living with biological parents that follows, which is not supported by the research (stable, loving homelife IS a benefit, but regardless of the blood relationship). Survival of the human race? Are they fucking kidding me?

Listen, it seems perfectly reasonable to believe that we won’t be around in a hundred-some years, but insufficient hooking up of dicks and pussies is not going to be the cause. We have more than enough people in the world. I’d vote too many.

But, further, the claim, the connection, is just bullshit. As Dan Savage points out in his recent NYT op-ed, his 60+ grandfather didn’t remarry for procreative purposes or to ensure that his (fully-grown) children had both mommy and daddy. Procreation and marriage aren’t in any way necessarily connected, meaning that a marriage without procreation is still considered a marriage. But, should it be?

Maybe the WA Supreme Court and everyone else that has trotted out this thin veil to throw over institutional homophobia are really on to something. If lack of procreative ability is reason enough to deny gays marriage, then it is reason enough to deny any non-procreative couple their license.

Let’s put some balls on the fucking Defense of Marriage Act. Those pussy Republicans didn’t go far enough. You want to get married, show that you can have children, period. Too old? Too bad. Shooting blanks? You’re flying solo. Post-hysterectomy? Cry me a river, spinster.

But we can’t stop there. The Lord don’t love no shirkers nor cheats, after all. Marriage should be provisional until the procreation happens. Can’t make the magic happen? We’re sending you back to living in sin, and you can buy your own damned insurance when you get there. Marriage is for the baby-makers.

Think I can’t get support for such a measure? Then you don’t understand the quiet contempt parents hold all childless couple in, with your sex whenever and especially wherever you want, and your going to movies and plays and concerts, and your vacations and your disposable income. We hate you for not suffering along with us, almost as much as the WA Supreme Court hates man-on-man lovin’ and the thought that a precious, precious egg or seed might go wasted in mankind’s relentless war against extinction.

Dudes, I’m fucking serious. This is their argument, and they are totally safe making it, because there are too many people like me, that damn gay marriage with faint praise because they aren’t gay, they don’t really care, it doesn’t really affect them.

Let’s make it absolutely fucking clear what their rationale means, and hold them to it. Applying their argument in any way short of universally, which suddenly implicates a lot more people, falls illegally short of equal protection.

Fuck ‘em with their own twisted logic. Now excuse me while I go paint up my “Marriage is for breeders” sign and prepare to march.