The political soup du jour

I was surprised, but not in a good way, to hear that some conservatives might play the gay card again this election season. I am angry about this development on so many different levels, I don’t quite know where to begin, but I’m just cynical enough to fear it might work.

I’m angry because for most of us, it is a small issue. For myself and for the heterosexual masses out there, the issue has zero effect on our lives. For the conservatives out there foaming at the mouth with (self) righteous indignation… the issue has no practical effect on their lives either. It is an issue that has one practical effect… denying happiness, acceptance, and a degree financial security to a minority based on their personal preferences. I’m disgusted by such shallow callousness.

I’m angry because for some conservatives, it’s one more slice of thinly veiled hypocrisy. It seems that some are saying gay unions are the single biggest threat to the institution of marriage. Bullshit. Anyone old enough to know the definition of the word “adultery” can tell you that IT’S the single biggest threat to marriage. People get all hot and bothered over what they read in the Bible, but from what I hear you’ve got to look pretty hard to hear what it says on the issue of same sex, intimate relationships. Not being a Biblical scholar myself, I’ve got to rely on others here… but I’ve been led to believe the Bible brings up the issue of same sex relationships, like, half-a-dozen times. If this is true… well, I don’t know about you, but my Bible is a pretty big book. Not to mention that proponents seem to pretty much toss out the teachings of the entire New Testament (as I see it). And don’t even get me started about the Ten Commandments. If God really had sodomy on his mind he could have said, “thou shall not covet thy NEIGHBOR, or his wife….” (Emphasis added) The big G missed an opportunity BIG time there.

No, if those conservative nincompoops really wanted to get tough for marriage, they could start enforcing the anti-adultery laws that are already on the books. We could stop putzing around, talking about condoms and sex-ed, and engage in a little root cause analysis… and in that light, I say we ban coveting. My first act as an elected official (as if), would be to propose the banning gawking. There will be a two pronged approach to this ban. The legal concept of “animadverto per fortuna” will be defined as: staring by a married person (regardless of sex) at anther person (regardless of sex – whether same sex or not), without prior social engagement (i.e. conversation), marital engagement (getting hitched), or “good cause” (defined by some extra-ordinary attribute of the gawkee… i.e. injury, deformity, lack of fashion sense, poor hygiene, etc); or, any similar staring at a married person by another person (regardless of marital status), without prior social engagement, marital engagement, or “good cause.” The legal concept of “animadverto per propositum” will be defined as: staring by a married person at another person, during the course of social engagement, without prior marital engagement, at any part of the body below the clavicular notch of the sternum; or, any similar staring at a married person by another person (regardless of marital status), during the course of social engagement, without prior marital engagement, at any part of the body below the clavicular notch of the sternum. Engaging in either “animadverto per propositum” or “animadverto per fortuna” (subsequent to prosecution and adjudication) shall be punishable by public stoning. To get over the myriad of Constitutional hurdles, we’ll probably have to make this one an amendment too, but I think the ends will justify the means: truly protecting the sanctity of marriage. Just to show that I’m not a zealot… the stoning bit will be negotiable. This of course will only be part of a larger, “Contract with God for a moral America,” which will be the basis for my campaign.

There’s just one problem: there’s probably more adulterous/covetous conservatives in America than there are gay people. It’d be really hard for Congress to serve as a moral compass if they’re serving 2-5 in the klink for “alienation of marital affection.”

Seriously, I want to be clear that I’m NOT a better man than them conservative folk. I can covet with the best of them. Heck, I may even be better… there’s no limit to what I’ll covet: people, places, things; either live or represented in various media…but let’s call a spade a spade. Gay marriage is a risk to no one and nothing… except, maybe, someone’s sensibilities. Don’t give me a “drugs” analogy either, that’s just crap. No one was ever killed by a “gay driver” (don’t you start with me, you know what I mean), nor is homosexuality likely to drive someone to crime to support their addiction.

We have a terrible record of legislating so called “morality” in this country. I hope we won’t make the same mistake again. My stomach churns at the thought of a hypocritical bunch of conservatives running on non-issue that they have no real intention of legislating in the first place… again. Notice the issue comes up every time the current President’s coat-tails don’t look so inviting? I wonder why no one was worried about marriage when Dubya’s approval was higher than a coke addict on a three day binge, back in ’02. There’s nothing like fear to mobilize a demoralized base, is there?

**Author’s Note: the author acknowledges that he is not above the same type or level of self-righteousness that he criticizes others for in this entry. Having thusly vacated the moral high ground, the reader may choose to ignore the preceding entry, as per our normal schedule. Further, any errors in Latin grammar or usage that may be found in this entry are mine and mine alone. I have not consulted with an expert in Latin, nor have I had any training in Latin, prior to the conception, writing, or publication of this entry.

Give the gift of words.