Gay marriage roundup

I have lots of thoughts about the whole "Bush endorses anti-gay-marriage amendment" crap. So let's just get them out of the way.

First, and perhaps most important, this has absolutely no chance of getting out of the Senate, much less passing the House and making it out to the state legislatures. So spending any time or emotion on it is stupid. I know that. That doesn't stop it from, as Grandpa Simpson would say, "angrying up my blood."

Next: Everyone, including the far-right religious fanatics this is being aimed at, know that this is a political stunt by a President whose approval ratings are hovering just this side of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. Bush's statement is also meaningless, except in that it represents a craven flipflop from his earlier position to let the states handle it.

Next. Memo to hard-right religious fanatics: Did you by any chance notice that you're not getting squat from this President? Women are still getting abortions, even strippers and unwed teens. Sodomy is still legal. Revival meetings still cannot be held on public school football fields. Fags continue to flaunt their evil deviances in your face. You're getting nothing! Are a few meaningless words in support of your cause really enough? Where are the results? Think about it.

Next. I can't stand these Democratic operatives going on every national media outlet and using this as their debate tactic against the anti-gay amendment: Hey, the American people don't care about this; they care about jobs, and Iraq, and gas prices. To this I say, get a spine, will you, Dems? How about, "This amendment would enshrine discrimination into the Constitution"? Something like that. Something real and true. Can't manage it? No, I didn't think you could, you spineless, scum-sucking political operatives. Go fuck yourselves.

Next. As Atrios pointed out, why isn't every fucktard who screams about "activist judges redefining marriage against the will of the American people" asked a simple question: "When Loving v. Virginia made mixed marriages legal in 1967, 73 percent of the American public disapproved of interracial marriage. Was that an 'activist court'? Was that a bad legal decision, since it went against the will of the majority?" But of course that question will never be asked. The press knows where its bread is buttered.

Next. A fascinating factoid I came across when researching this entry: In February 2004, Massachusetts residents disapproved of same-sex marriage 53 percent to 35 percent. In May 2004, the state began marrying gay couples. When the same poll was taken in March 2005, less than a year later, the numbers had done a complete reversal: 56 percent in favor, 35 percent opposed. I guess letting those gays get married isn't so bad, after all.

Finally. My opinion, and I'm serious about this, is that the government should get out of the marriage business entirely. If people want to get married in a church, or on a beach, or in prison, or while naked or underwater, they are welcome to do so. But it should be a religious and/or cultural institution, not a legal one. Why should the state be sanctioning anyone's relationship in the first place? You want property rights, or child custody, or whatever - go to a lawyer. That means you, breeders. Yeah, you. I'm sure the lawyers will be behind this plan. You don't want the state to sanction icky gay sex? Fine. But it's not going to sanction your lifesize-sex-doll, Internet-porn, getting-it-on-with-the -babysitter hetero marriage either.

CODA: You think I have a potty mouth? Try the always-bracing Rude Pundit.