Okay, I know this is supposed to be an entertainment column, and there is certainly nothing entertaining about ignorance or intolerance.
But when we speak of entertainment, we are certainly referencing media, and lately our media has been inundated with discussion of gay marriage.
The impending presidential election has, for obvious reasons, been the focus of much of our recent news. But the hot-button topic we want each candidate to address is not our skyrocketing deficit, resolving the aftermath of our decimation of Iraq, or the restoration of the basic human rights we have given away in the name of domestic tranquility.
No, what we really want to know is what our presidential hopefuls think about those silly gay people who think they should have the right to enjoy the same celebration of love that straight people are privy to.
The really amazing thing is that, while the election is still in the walk-on-eggshells phase where candidates don’t want to turn off potential voters, our primary candidates are openly endorsing homophobia.
But, we’re getting ahead of ourselves here. The most vocal opponent of gay marriage has been our current fearless leader, George “war president” Bush.
In between ludicrous statements like “I think we are welcomed in Iraq,” Bush has spouted off interminably about his view of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. There is even talk about a constitutional amendment that will establish this as the federal government’s definition of marriage.
But, I’m sure Bush would be the first to say that he’s no homophobe, and that the current laws on marriage do not allow one’s spouse to be of the same sex.
Well, since our politicians love their semantics, why don’t we take a look at the terms they are using to defend their ignorance. Webster’s New World Dictionary defines “spouse” as “(one’s) husband or wife.” Seems reasonable, but if the law defines one’s marriage partner as such, then gay marriage is not implicitly barred, since nothing in the definition or law states that one must be the opposite sex of their spouse.
Bush and his equally conservative-minded cronies insist that their main objective in opposing gay marriage is to preserve, let’s say it all together now, “the sanctity of marriage.”
Sure, we’ve heard all about it, but what does it mean? “Sanctity” is defined as “holiness” and is derived from the Latin word sanctus, which means “holy.”
Now, wait just a minute….. Doesn’t that mean that our government officials’ reasons for opposition are based on religious beliefs? Whatever happened to that whole “separation of church and state” thing?
The main problem with this view is that we are defining marriage as a legal contract, and not the symbolic act it is meant to be.
When we talk of denying this right to homosexuals, we are depriving them of their right to feel and express love, something that no federal document should have any bearing on.
The truth is that we don’t dislike gay people…. as a concept. The ratings for “Queer Eye For the Straight Guy” are soaring, and “Will and Grace” continues to enjoy a successful run, despite predominantly gay humor. See, I told you this was an entertainment column.
We are okay with these outlandish, exaggerated, stereotyped characters, yet the thought of two of our neighbors uniting legally bothers us. It seems that we love gay people when they are visibly different than us, but we don’t want them to live the same as us.
Homosexuals are not deviants, and their desire to legally marry has no sinister motive. Gays are not trying to tarnish the institution of marriage; they simply want the ability to marry the person they love, and to not have their elected officials telling them they are unholy for doing so.
I have been privileged to know some outstanding homosexual people, and though I can not share their sexual orientation, I have found that we are all looking for the same things out of life.
Our human nature makes us want to fall in love, settle down, build a home, raise a family, live happy lives. In this respect, you don’t have to be homosexual to support gay marriage, you just have to be a human being. It’s scary that so many of our politicians, and the citizens who support them, are incapable of this.
If you agree with their holy sentiment, then consider this: Our divorce rate is higher than it has ever been, more than a third of murder victims are killed by their spouse, and we live in a country where we can get married at a drive-thru window. Exactly where is the “sanctity” we’re fighting so hard to defend?
Taylor Kingsbury, a senior journalism major, is a columnist for the Campus Times. He can be reached by e-mail at happyendingrocks@hotmail.com.
