Gay Marriage: Yes, but Not Yet

Discuss this on our boards!

Gay Marriage: Yes, but Not Yet
by J. Edward Tremlett, Columnist

September 3, 2003

"Down On the rANT Farm"

J. Edward Tremlett Well, it definitely seems that the notion of two gay people tying the knot has Middle America all in a terrible tizzy. Would such a thing be the end of Western Civilization as we know it? Or is it just another step to take along the same path that has us now looking down our noses at people using racial slurs just like grandpa used to make? Is it devolution or evolution?

Unsurprisingly to most rANT Farm readers, I’m in the latter camp. I think Gay Marriage should be allowed, recognized far and wide and ushered in with lots of tiny, silver bells all chiming “Tainted Love.” (Well, okay… maybe not THAT tune, but you get my drift.) I think it is something that is needed as an institution in America, and I hope to see it in my lifetime.

Why would I say this? Well, I look at this not as an issue of “right” versus “wrong,” but one of “fair” versus “unfair.” We can sit here all day and argue about whether something is right or wrong, but yet still disagree. However, issues of fairness are often pretty clear-cut and solid … except when YOU’RE being stubborn about it. But that’s your problem, then, isn’t it?

So I say that it is not fair that the law and the State will not recognize a bond of love and trust because that bond has been forged between two people of the same gender, rather than opposite ones. To me, it shouldn’t matter if it’s Adam and Eve, Adam and Steve or Eve and Suzy: if they’re willing to put out their hands and say “I do,” and mean it, then they should have the same rights and responsibilities in a marriage as anyone else. And if that love can stand the test of time and tide – the same one that has the national average for people my age divorcing after five years – then more power to them.

I think part of the problem – besides the obvious “Ewww, fags!” factor – is that the understanding of what a marriage really is has been grossly politicized. Marriage is not just about having children. It’s not about the right to bump uglies, raising your tax bracket or doing what some grey-faced bozo with an op-ed column thinks is “right” for you. Maybe it’s about following your God’s law, and maybe that works for you, but as per my previous comments about “right” and “wrong” we could be here all day on that one, too…

So for me, it’s about love. It should always and ever have been about love. Because a society without love is missing one of the principal ingredients of morality. And a pluralistic society that denies, sidelines or condemns the love shown by two adults for one another is missing the point.You’d think that would be pretty self-evident if you just turned off the blinders and turned on the common sense… but no. We’ve allowed ourselves to be sidetracked by critics who can do little more than issue jeremiads about bestialists and child molesters. And that is a very worrisome thing - especially when such views tend to predominate amongst the shepherds.

Yes, it definitely seems that the notion of two gay people being allowed to have sex with one another – much less getting married – is problematic in and of itself. The recent Supreme Court decision concerning sodomy laws has struck several raw and jangling nerves, to the point where the President’s announcement that marriage is only for a man and a woman was more important to CNN that his taking responsibility for “the uranium thing.”

Likewise, you have to figure there’s something really approaching panic in the Oval Office when a wartime President has to assign lawyers to look into some way to ban gay marriage. You’d think he’d have them concentrate on what venue to try Saddam Hussein’s sorry ass in when we finally catch the bastard, but there they are, looking into a proactive strike against pink honeymooners. So I get the feeling some of the ‘shepherds’ may have called up the White House and spat their kinky-dinky sex thoughts over the phone to the Commander in Chief, reminding him that next year is election season.

And that’s why – unfortunately - I have to say that I don’t think that right now is the best time for folks to push for Gay Marriage. The wounds from the sodomy decision are still too raw for many Americans to handle such a thing without gagging and running for cover. And “many” Americans can significantly change how an election or public opinion goes – something I’m sure the Shepherds are counting on for 2004. Giving the greyfaces a lot of ammunition would not be a good idea at this time.

No, this is not a matter to be settled in one fell swoop; It’s one of those things that’s just going to have to take time and cultural change. It won’t be brought about by some great, sweeping election promise from someone trying to (cynically?) cultivate the pink vote – it’s going to take ordinary folks realizing that this isn’t about sex or some weird notion of “rights,” but fairness and love. And while people might be dancing blithely to TaTu and watching “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy” for laughs, the realization that gays are ordinary people too is still a long way away for far too many.

So, Yes – let’s have Gay Marriage. But let’s make sure there’s more of a cultural foundation for it to rest on, first, rather than shoving it down people’s throats when too many of them are already unable to breathe. It will come around when it’s the right time for it, and not before.

But when it does, I will be there with bells on… hopefully having something else to play besides old Soft Cell numbers. ***

J. Edward Tremlett is a published author, political thinker and self-described "mean-spirited crank." He lives with his wife and two cats in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

You liked that rant? Come get some more at the rANT Farm - http://rant_farm.tripod.com/index.html

Photo of J. Edward Tremlett courtesy of staff files