The Complete Idiocy of The Marriage Protection Act
All across this great land, in hearths and homes everywhere, conversations like this one are surely taking place, which must warm the cockles of those brave hearts who are sponsoring the bill they say is intended to protect "the sacrament of marriage."
In the House debate over The Marriage Protection Act there was something for everyone. Conservatives were able to damn the damnable, and to swear that no matter what some state judge or legislature might join together, the Federal Government would retain the right to put it asunder.
Those representatives who prefer reason to doxology were able chop up that particular logical cabbage with ease, but it was clear the cole-slaw was already made, and the bill would pass regardless.
Just the same, we were proud of our Congressman, Wayne Gilchrest, who took the floor and with quiet dignity reminded his Bible-quoting colleagues of words Jesus spoke... "Judge not, lest ye be judged."
And it is a moral judgement that the bill's sponsors use as their rationale. They say they believe that homosexuality is a sin, and because it's a sin, it should not be tolerated. Since it's hard to prove that something is a sin, they hide behind popular opinion, claiming that seventy percent of the American People think it is, too.
Perhaps they do, it doesn't matter.
A similar percentage of Americans were opposed to integration, an apt analogy because this is, clearly, a civil rights issue.
It's always astonishing to see the undying exuberance of ignorance as people who now reluctantly accept equal rights for people of color and for women get that stuck-pig look and moan... "What, you mean we have to be fair to THEM, too ? Golllllly."
Yeah, you have to be fair to them too. This is no more a matter of gay rights than civil rights are "black" rights. They're all human rights, and it's just gay folks who happen to be up to bat at the moment.
These moral sons of God have to win sometimes, and the smart money is letting them win this one, for good reason. It's a silly law that has no real meaning, pretending to legislate an area the federal government has been careful to avoid for two hundred years.
But that's just fine with those who sponsored the bill. They didn't actually want to do anything, they just wanted to remind the folks at home that even though they've been seen hanging out at fancy restaurants with fancy waiters, they still know who to hate.
That's real good, boys. Now how about dealing with a matter of national interest, for a change ?
July 12, 1996 Charles Paparella The Shore Journal