Gay Marriage: Go to the Back of the Bus!

In most states, gay marriage isn't legal, which is possibly the last major civil rights violation in America today. But that's irrelevant. The approval of gay marriage isn't about human rights, or the Religious Right, or even the fourth finger on Barney Frank's left hand. It's about the wrath of God.

That's right -- God. As in Jehovah. Abba Pater. The popular prefix to "dammit."

Should we allow gays and lesbians to bring their unnatural vices to the time-honored tradition of blessed matrimony? Of course not! That would be like running an ad campaign for the end of the world -- like sending a press release to the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse: "Deviants allowed to crash holy heterosexual institution ... send in the archangel!"

But let's not get too dramatic. Even without God's intervention, gay marriage would certainly destroy America's cherished Christian heritage as we know it. This heritage, as all good Americans learned in elementary school, is a rich tradition established by our profoundly Christian founding fathers -- men like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin -- men who were men, men who knew a thing or two about women, men whose deism was ... beside the point. These great patriots would never effeminize the American dream. They would balk at the idea of putting Adam and Steve in a cute house with a white-picket fence and an outlandish mortgage. In fact, our founding fathers thought so little of gay rights that they didn't even mention homosexuals in the Constitution. Perhaps they were too busy declaring that an African-American counts as three-fifths of a person -- and that a Native American doesn't count as a person at all. But that's beside the point, too.

As Pat Robertson observes from time to time, "the acceptance of homosexuality is the last step in the downfall of Gentile culture." This statement makes two things abundantly clear: first, that legalizing gay marriage would open America to invasions from more masculine countries like Norway and Canada (remember how those Roman slave-spanking pansies fell to the Visigoths?) -- and second, since Robertson affirms that Gentiles are the only people who really matter, then Jewish Americans are apparently free to accept homosexuality at their leisure.

So what's at stake here? Our cultural institutions, that's what. Specifically, our precious institution of marriage -- an institution cherished by God-fearing, wife-cheating, wife-beating heterosexuals everywhere. If we surrender marriage to gays and lesbians, which American institution will be next? Divorce? Joint tax returns? Suburban midlife crises, even? When will gays and lesbians stop trying to participate in the same traditions that make the rest of us such complacent hypocrites?

Which brings us to the Vermont Issue. Ah, Vermont -- the little New England state often associated with lumberjacks. You may ask, "How did such a beautiful state fall prey to the homosexual agenda?" And many gay men would answer, "Well, have you seen some of those lumberjacks?" Before you know it, homosexuals from every corner of America will converge in Montpelier, adapting their fashion consciousness to the harsh climate of New England. The solution? I suggest moving as far away from Vermont as possible; my broker, on the other hand, suggests buying stock in Eddie Bauer and L.L. Bean. The choice is yours.

But where to move? This is a very difficult question, indeed -- especially since only a few safe places remain. Places like West Virginia. Or Alabama, perhaps. Or maybe north-central Idaho. But this hardly solves the problem -- because even though West Virginia boasts a relatively low concentration of militant gay people, the residents of that state actually run a higher chance of getting involuntarily sodomized. So perhaps a compromise is in order.

Consider, then, the prospect of moving to California.

Yes, indeed -- California. Home to a massive sex industry, a thriving drug culture, and even the Walt Disney Studios. The Golden State probably has more homosexuals than any other place in America, but at least it doesn't recognize gay marriage under any circumstances, regardless of whether or not a gay couple has taken the Autumn Colors Tour of New England. You see, Californian voters recently passed Proposition 22, an initiative sponsored by Peter Knight (not, as his name suggests, a gay porn star, but rather a state senator). The Knight Initiative states that "only a marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized" within the state of California. This is essentially an extension of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) -- a bill sponsored by congressman Bob Barr, who respects marriage so highly that he's been married three times.

You see, the passage of Proposition 22 is a very good thing, because it means that normal, healthy Americans (full-blooded, meat-eating, sexually secure patriots like you and me) can still live in the heart of San Francisco, surrounded by gays and lesbians of every age and description, without feeling the least bit threatened. Because even if we find homosexual behavior repulsive, we can at least take comfort in the fact that we still deny gays and lesbians equal access to health insurance, medical decision-making, Social Security benefits, automatic inheritance for their partners, and all the other economic benefits of marriage.

But wait -- with all this talk about "basic human rights," why does no one defend the rights of Christians like you and me? Whatever happened to our God-given rights to belittle and oppress all the other minorities? And why are we even discussing "basic human rights" and "equal benefits" when an archaic institution is at stake? In modern America, marriage exists for two reasons: to provide better benefits for a cohabiting couple, and to satisfy (at least in a symbolic sense) our basic human need for stability within a socially recognized relational unit. Why should homosexuals need either of these things? Those ungrateful bastards! What do they have to complain about? They have every right to run their little lives in out-of-the-way urban ghettos and late-night bars, yet they still employ all that silly rhetoric about "finding a place at the table" and "refusing to take the back seat." Oh, c'mon -- back seat, schmack seat. They should be thankful they're even on the same goddamn bus!

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. AlterNet’s journalists work tirelessly to counter the traditional corporate media narrative. We’re here seven days a week, 365 days a year. And we’re proud to say that we’ve been bringing you the real, unfiltered news for 20 years—longer than any other progressive news site on the Internet.

It’s through the generosity of our supporters that we’re able to share with you all the underreported news you need to know. Independent journalism is increasingly imperiled; ads alone can’t pay our bills. AlterNet counts on readers like you to support our coverage. Did you enjoy content from David Cay Johnston, Common Dreams, Raw Story and Robert Reich? Opinion from Salon and Jim Hightower? Analysis by The Conversation? Then join the hundreds of readers who have supported AlterNet this year.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure AlterNet remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to AlterNet, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

Close