Interesting take on FMA from a REAL conservative...

[chiburb]

Neil Steinberg, Chicago Sun-Times...
(And notice the Morfordian second-to-last sentence...lol)

Snip:

I don't want to talk about gay marriage. First, whenever I do, religious fanatics then send the most grotesque e-mail imaginable, detailing sexual practices that obviously obsess them but which I'd rather not think about. Second, I don't like to be reminded that the average American believes gays will spend eternity roasting on a spit in hell, scoured by the flames of Jews burning in the ring below them.

Supporters present the matter as beyond discussion: Gay marriage will weaken, if not destroy, traditional marriage. Period. "Changing the definition of traditional marriage will undermine the family structure," Bush says. But they're mum about how, exactly, this damage will be inflicted. Will heterosexuals be less inclined to enter into marriage once the institution is sullied by gays? Will married people cling less strongly to their vows because, heck, if fags can do it, what does it mean anyway? And why is this particular contract so susceptible to being ruined by gays? We don't feel the same way about mortgages.

Here, Republicans don't worry about trifles such as logic. They loathe gays and want to keep them out. Presenting a rationale is almost secondary, and the two arguments they do fling -- nature and tradition -- are particularly weak. Gay sex might be "unnatural,'' in that it doesn't lead to procreation, but then heart bypass surgery is equally unnatural and nobody seems to mind it. As far as tradition, the amendment would, to quote its author, Sen. Wayne Allard (R-Colo.), protect marriage "as it has been defined for thousands of years in hundreds of cultures around the world.'' That's a line of reasoning that works equally well defending slavery, or stoning, both also practiced for thousands of years in hundreds of cultures. We turn our backs on the world regarding everything else. Suddenly, gays want to get married, and we're peering into distant yurts and ancient scrolls for guidance.

At the end of the day, you know what the entire defense of the marriage amendment will accomplish? It will preserve the word "marriage'' as exclusive heterosexual property. That's it. Gays will still go to City Hall, get certificates to form "Civil Unions'' or "Committed Bonds'' or something not called "marriage." They'll have ceremonies where people throw rice, and then move to your street and raise their adopted children. And a hundred years from now we'll realize that we have this antique, hateful law jammed into our Constitution like a cockroach smashed into the spun sugar frosting of a wedding cake. Embarrassed, they'll remove it, the way we occasionally strike out laws about tying up your horse in town.


http://www.suntimes.com/output/steinberg/cst-nws-stein12.html

[phillybri]

1. Good article...good insights...

Thanks for posting!

[Killarney]

2. really good read

[chiburb]

3. One kick....n/t

[rkc3]

4. It's always fun to ask a right wing nuttie how gay marriage will

have a negative impact on "traditional" marriages. Usually you get a blank stare or some comment about the Bible says so.

It's even better when you remind them they are not required to practice sodomy on their brothers-in-law.

I've gone so far as to ask how far back we should push marriage laws - the late 60's when it was unlawful for inter-racial couples to marry. Or to the 1700's when women had no property rights.

You get a good feel for who you're talking to when you bring these comments up - are they racist and sexist, or just a homophobe?

[sallyseven]

6. Most of them are stuck on the

but "don't you see god made only and man and a women for marriage" Two men do not fit. (I let that one slide by thinking thats what you think.) So I verily say to you my good Christian friends. If marriage is so sacred what about Michael Jackson 2 marriages, Brittany Spears 3 marriages, Liz Taylor's 7. How damn sacred is marriage really.

[rkc3]

7. And don't forget Rush's 3 failed marriages.

[starroute]

5. And then what if "Civil Unions" become the cool thing to do?

Face it -- marriage hasn't had a particularly hip image at any time in the last 40 years. It's something your grandparents took for granted but that even your parents thought twice about. Marriage survives largely on the same basis as Microsoft -- because it has a near-monopoly of certain legal and social advantages.

I predict that the moment Civil Unions convey all the benefits of marriage, they will be regarded as the cool thing, even for heterosexuals seeking to make their bonds official. Probably backed up, for those who want to emphasize a deeper commitment, by some sort of spiritual ceremony. And marriage, as we've known it, will become the province of a shrinking subset of American society rather than the norm.

If the Christian Right wanted to destroy marriage as a basic institution, they couldn't have found a better way to go about it.