No need to fear married queer |

No need to fear married queer

I love being married.

Hell, I love it so much I’ve done it twice. In fact, I plan on doing it a third time in just a few years.

On that occasion, of course, it will be to retake vows of honor and such with my beautiful opposite-sex wife on a sunny beach in Bora-Bora for our 10th anniversary. But I guess that’s neither here nor there at the moment.

What is, though, is the Bush administration’s proposal of a constitutional amendment to limit the legal bonds of marriage to only one man and one woman, irregardless of either’s race, creed, sexual preference or party affiliation.

Maybe it’s just me, but I’ve spent 44 years hanging around so far, and up until a few weeks ago I had no idea it was against the law for gays to be married.

Who knew? And I grew up in Texas.

Yet now it’s become this colossal issue that for a variety of bizarre reasons seems to be as important to some as the economy, education, crime, welfare, health care and terrorism combined, with the future of mankind hanging precariously in the balance.

What’s the big, friggin’ puritanical deal, or am I being rhetorical here?

Marriage is two consenting adults mutually agreeing to spend their lives together in a monogamous relationship (this only applies to civilized segments of the planet, so we’ll forget about “arranged” marriages in parts of Asia, Africa, the Middle East and San Francisco).

Recently I have heard more than one self-righteous talking head claim that marriage is for raising children; therefore, since homosexuals can’t have children, then they shouldn’t be allowed to marry.

Last time I checked, senior citizens were not forbidden to marry because of their biological inability to conceive. Neither were couples declaring intentions to purposely not have children or those unfortunate enough to be permanently impotent.

The argument has as much weight as a Nader vote. A few others:

“Homosexuals make bad parents.”

So do two out every 10 straight parents I currently know.

“Shouldn’t children be raised by their biological parents?”

Then I reckon we should outlaw divorce.

“But marriage is only feasible if the couple is monogamous.”

Yeah. Right.

“Won’t a child with same-sex parents will be subjected to hate?”

No different than any other discriminated-against minority.

“Children raised by homosexual parents will become homosexual adults.”

Under that premise all straight parents would raise straight kids, and therefore this issue would not exist. Duh.

“But the Bible says homosexual activity is a capital offense.”

It also condoned slavery. Besides, the last time I checked the United States was still under a secular government.

“But the dictionary says …”

Dictionaries are not constitutional documents.

“Wouldn’t same-sex marriage be a radical change for society?”

Sort of like allowing blacks to use the same water fountain? There is no greater unjust support of tolerance than intolerance.

“But traditional marriage is one of the bedrock institutions of our society steeped in over 3,000 years of tradition.”

Yes, and so is prostitution. But maybe you’re right. Maybe we shouldn’t meddle with sacred acts taken so seriously by people like Britney Spears, Las Vegas, and the entire state of Utah. Besides, on what logic is an institution not weakened by discriminating against certain members of society?

“If we allow gay marriage, what’s next, man-dog weddings and people marrying cars or their blow-up dolls?”

Or some poor lonely schlep marrying his right hand? No, no, that’s not funny.

Let’s keep this issue to marriage within the same species, OK?

“But gays want special rights that we straights don’t get.”

Name one.

“Well, same-sex sex is just plain icky.”

I couldn’t agree more. Makes me want to puke all over my keyboard just thinking about it. But hey, as long as they’re doing it behind closed doors like the rest of us, I couldn’t care less.

Our Constitution states that all men are created equal, so how can we deny the basic human and legal right of marriage to a class of individuals due to their sexual preference?

Come on, the Bush administration knows full well that they would never receive a two-thirds majority of both the House and Senate, plus 38 out of 50 states to pass and then ratify such an amendment.

This is a populist issue to sway votes during an election year – nothing more, nothing less – and both parties will attempt to use it to their advantage.

If you’re against gay marriage, don’t have one. If you still insist upon complaining about those who do, go find some other self-righteous hobby.

This one’s a waste of time.

Richard Carnes of Edwards writes a weekly column for the Daily. He can be reached at

Support Local Journalism