Dubya attacks gay marriage again to get votes......

I went to my Alum's (Michigan State University) web site version of their newspaper and found a wonderful editorial about Dubya's newest attack on gay marriage. The editorial was so great that I thought I would just post it in full text. I agree with everything he writes:

'Defining' marriage silly, heterosexuals have damaged institution

The sanctity of marriage is in danger of forever being drowned in depravity and sin. Stop the presses. Terror alert elevated: code turquoise. Oh, the humanity.
This whole debacle mushroomed earlier this year, when those rascally gays actually spoke up and sought their right to have their unions recognized by the government. They wanted the same benefits straight couples enjoy, including recognition of parenthood in case one half of the union befell tragedy. They wanted to make sure the child wouldn't end up in a foster home rather than with the person who raised the child its whole life because of a skewed court system. Eew. Since when do they deserve rights?

To combat it, most recently in our dear mitten of a state, a petition has been circulated to put a legal definition of marriage - a man and a woman united by law - on the ballot in November. Dubya even stammered about having the constitution amended to define the institution as such.

It's a tremendous push to, as the claims state, protect the sanctity of marriage. Marriage. The union of two kindred spirits in the eyes of the law, both divine and human. A pledge between a man and a woman. A pledge for two to forever be committed to one another, now and forever. Amen - er, I forgot. Religious zealotry doesn't factor into this at all.

And now these gays want to destroy this sacred institution by pledging their love to the same sex. And they want their love and devotion recognized. Not in my back yard, ladies. A promise ring will have to do. Go love and devote somewhere else.

Aside from misperceived Biblical references, taken out of context and contradicted throughout, I have yet to hear a plausible argument for the eminent threat that gay marriage has on the sacred sacrament and institution. I've heard and read arguments claiming to be about the threat but were actually free speech issues about the barring of anti-gay statements by religious leaders. Not one person has legitimately given a reason why gay unions will irreparably devastate the institution of marriage as we know it. As if the union of two gay men will suddenly cause the core of the Earth to boil over, spilling lava on all us sinners as God watches, chuckling, from above.

Perhaps the absence of a proven threat is a direct result of we straight folk. After all, we've done more harm to the sacredness of marriage than we can possible imagine. That is not to say that there aren't sacred bonds existing in heterosexual marriage, but we heteros have more or less made a mockery of the institution that the staunch conservative segment of the population seems to see as a glittering ball of humanistic harmony, disrupted only by those gays and their icky love.

Marriage has become a joke. A weekend fling. Role models like Britney Spears can cruise out to Vegas, get married for a night and be done with it. Bada bing. It's a quick walk from the altar to the divorce lawyer's office. Divorce rates have skyrocketed. Prominent figures and folks in your community have been married and divorced several times over, some unions lasting years, some less than a month.

Yeah, I got your sanctity of marriage.

We have the most asinine reasons for marriage in the straight and conservative community. Premarital sex is a sin. Masturbation is inhuman. But dammit, there's an overload of testosterone in an 18-year-old's loins that just needs to be expelled. What's a horny lad to do? Marry little Peggy Sue. After an awkward honeymoon and some uncomfortable sex, the two live unhappily ever after, afraid to part and stuck together because they used the "sacred institution" of marriage to get their rocks off without angering the Lord (these are the same people, mind you, who still think Christ was a dirty-blond white dude with smooth skin and a post-Renaissance style of dress).

We have prenuptial agreements, which are more or less a guarantee that the marriage won't last. We have mail order brides who come to the states for a marriage, some emotionless consummation and a green card. We can be married by the high priest known as an Elvis impersonator.

Could it really be that straight folks have ruined the "sanctity of marriage" to the point that they fear that gay people might do a better job? Heteros have spent over 2000 years ruining marriage in its purest form. Maybe the real threat in the whole issue is the threat of pride. Maybe homosexuals could go on to make the symbolic union of those in love something sacred again.

Danger. Stop the presses. Terror alert elevated; code violet. Those gross, icky gays could actually make marriage an institution of love and devotion again. We'd best stop them before they destroy us all. Scary times.


Andy Kryza is the State News opinion editor. Reach him at kryzaand@msu.edu.