With the passage of gay marriage in Rhode Island (plus ten other states), and the recent ruling from the United States Supreme Court, which struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) signed by President Bill “I did not do that to that woman” Clinton (so much for the sanctity of marriage), gay marriage advocates are in full march once again.
Along with striking down the DOMA provision which barred benefits to same-sex couples and their beneficiaries, the Supreme Court also struck down California’s “Prop 8” voter initiative, which received 51% of voters’ support in 2008, thus amending the state constitution. Still, five Supreme Court Justices ruled that on procedural grounds the constitutional amendment was unconstitutional (so much for the rule of law, and the will of the people).
So, the gay marriage movement is on the move, with the six-colored rainbow flag rolling across the land.
Then again, the very banner bandied about by gay marriage advocates betrays the hollowness of the movement. A real rainbow has seven bands: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, as well as violet (ROY G. BIV for you grade-schoolers). As a matter of fact (as well as faith and fullness) their rainbow will never be complete; their sentiment of unaccomplishment will remain in full spread. How could it be otherwise? The notion that two people of the same sex (not gender, but individuals with the same primary and secondary sexual characteristics) can marry has no basis in biology, psychology, or even history.
Yet progressives, liberals, the Democratic hypermajority, and even some Republicans in the Rhode Island statehouse decided, out of “fairness” (or equality? Or access? Which liberal buzz-word is it?), that gay marriage should have a “gay” ol’ time in Rhode Island.
No shy advocate for gay marriage, openly gay House Speaker Gordon Fox claimed that marriage is all about family, commitment, and love in recent interview with the Providence Journal.
Although he shared that the whole “gay marriage” vote was unprecedented for him, he did admit:
“My becoming speaker of the House would move this issue forward.”
And yet he was surprised at its passage?
About gaining support for gay marriage. Speaker Fox explained:
“We have to put a face on the issue.”
Speaker Fox does not face many issues. He forgot about Rhode Island’s debt, deficits, and dysfunction. Not facing facts about the state of his state, Fox focused on gay marriage, claiming that it’s all about “love, commitment, and family”.
About gay marriage and Governor Lincoln Chafee, Fox added:
“I’m not alone anymore on this issue. I’ve got a friend and a partner.”
Well, Speaker Fox, I have a proposal for you.
Why don’t you marry Governor Chafee? Granted, he won’t be a faithful spouse, since he was not faithful to his first party, or to his previously ascertained “independent” status, but you said he was a “partner” on the issue.
I also have some other proposals to make.
I want to marry the cup of cocoa that I love. There are some readers in Rhode Island who know my love for cocoa , although one reader has repeatedly assured me that she will get me to drink coffee and make a real Rhode Islander out of me. As far as I am concerned, that is just not fair – I want to marry my cup of cocoa! I love my warm chocolately goodness, and I am committed to it, and it’s like family, since I always have it with me.
Not only do I want to marry my hot chocolate, Speaker Fox, I want to marry my cat. I am trying to put a face on this issue, Speaker. Since “gay marriage” has permitted such a massive transformation of that long and sacred sacrament, why can’t I have multiple partners, too? I want to marry my cat. I have suffered such discrimination because of my inability to marry my pets. My first died, and I could not inherit his benefits, since no one recognized the union of man and feline. My second cat also died (along with his benefits). When I find another cat, Speaker Fox, I want to be able to marry him (or her, or “it” if the cat is spayed)!
Why stop there? I want to marry another man’s wife (or should I say “spouse”). Since I can marry anyone I want to, Speaker, I would love to marry my neighbor’s wife. I am committed to her (whether she loves me, I don’t know). I love her so much, she is like family. So, I guess my attraction counts as legal and moral grounds for marriage, according to your definition.
Wait! Mr. Speaker, please bear with me a little. I have to ask you . .
Speaker Gordon Fox: will you marry me? I know that you (and Rhode Island) are married to structural debt, overwhelming pension obligations, fleeing businesses, high taxes, and a general culture of welfare-malaise, but it’s all about love, commitment and family. I know you can fit one more spouse into your “gay marriage”, incomplete rainbow mission:
Speaker Fox: Will you marry me?
No comments:
Post a Comment