.:: The StrongBrain Collective ::.

I am a proud American. I pay attention to politics and I vote. I am (unfortunately) an idealist. And I wholly dislike my president right now for claiming to represent my views on this gay-marriage issue being slapped across my face. Am I allowed to do that? Is this the proper forum to express my acrimony? This man is supposed to inspire me to be an American?

I don't think so. Today, February 24, 2004, he made a speech demanding that a constitutional amendment be passed defining marriage as the union of a man and a women. A constitutional amendment? In my experience, recent amendments were used to expedite equality and sanction freedom. Not used to further the agenda of the religious right. The 19th amendment granted women's suffrage. The 24th and 26th amendments gave every person eighteen years of age and older the right to have a voice in this country, including minorities. And then there was the immensely important 21st amendment, making it legal for me to drink cheap scotch as I author this very uninformed complaint.

Now, my president -- I will accept George W. Bush as my president despite the fact that I didn't vote for him. I must respect democracy -- wants Congress and the states to create a constitutional amendment that actually discludes, not includes, a certain group of people from enjoying what he terms "the most fundamental institution of civilization." He didn't say "one of many fundamental institutions of civilization"; he said "the most fundamental." Government? Law? Family? Democracy? All subservient to marriage? Wow, I would have never guessed.

He goes on to say, "[o]n a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard." What about me? Does he not include me, or the millions who undoubtedly feel somewhat as I do, amongst "people"? What about gay people who want to be married? What about Dick Cheney's daughter who is openly gay? What does she think? Is she not a person? The zero gay people that I interviewed for this article all thought Bush's argument ludicrous!

They all know, as I do, that homosexuals do not have a choice in the matter. Recent studies estimate that 10% of the Earth's population is gay. Complicating that study is the fact that there are various levels of homosexuality, a gradient between full homo to bi to full hetero. However, that should make no difference. Women couldn't choose to be men to vote. Blacks couldn't choose to be white or to be any more than 3/5 a man (as in slavery days) to enjoy equal rights. And homosexuals can't choose to be straight to get married. It's an institution of love, not biblical definition. I don't understand how the leader of the most powerful country in the world either, A. doesn't understand that, or B. bends to the will of those who don't see it.

Bush goes on to say: "Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society." Brilliant, absolutely brilliant. Oh wait, that's sarcasm. Not brilliant at all. Quite the opposite. Homosexual couples who choose to come out are not flimflam artists. They are two people obviously very committed to "love and serve one another" to undergo such government-sponsored torment in order to express their love equally with other equal human beings. And I didn't realize that two people who "love and serve one another", regardless of sexual orientation, would be a detriment to their children more than, say, crack-addicted single parents. There's no constitutional amendment against crack-addicted single parents? Why not? What are they "loving and serving" more than their crackpipe? Are they really caring for their children? Promoting the welfare of society?

Bush then says: "Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society." That's insulting. "Natural roots"? Being gay is natural, fuckhead! People don't choose to be gay, they are born that way. And if you can describe to me anything more natural than being "born that way", then you're a better man than I. Except there isn't, and you're not. Also, there are much more powerful ways to weaken "the good influence of society." Call me, I'm sure I can name one hundred, perhaps two.

Now, I haven't yet mentioned the apparent compromise of civil unions for a reason. The very idea is abhorrent. Everywhere I've read about civil unions, the coat-tailed rationalization is "separate but equal." Look, I'm only 26 years old. I was born in 1977 and didn't gain consciousness until 1986 when the Red Sox went to the World Series and a girl named Margaret kissed me on the lips. But, for my part, when I hear "separate but equal", it sounds a lot like the rationalization for the segregation of schools between blacks and whites. I don't care if it's actually equal as far as the law recognizes it. That doesn't matter. What does matter, what is truly important, is if I were to go up to a gay couple and ask them:

"Hey, when were you two lovely people with two well-behaved children married?" I would then have to look upon their discriminated faces as they responded, "We're not married. Our country wouldn't let us get married. We're civil unionized."

I'm sorry, but that would make me upset. And it's not fair. And the cliche "life isn't fair" shouldn't apply to love and semantics. I just wish GWB and everyone else adamantly opposed to gay marriage would understand that there are some gay couples who make better lovers and parents than straight couples. And vice versa. That's fair! That's life!

I would love for this to be a forum to bash Republicans. I have some Republican friends who are so because they "vote their wallet". I would love for this to be a forum where I proudly proclaim that there are more important things than money when it comes to human rights and the rights of our planet and anyone's right to live equally with anyone else. But the Clinton-Gore administration passed The Defense of Marriage Act. And they were Democrats. Even my boy Ralph Nader skirted the question on MSNBC recently. He was correct in terming it an "issue of semantics", but he should've taken a stronger stand.

Who am I going to vote for? I'm not gay (I wish I were. As a guy, it would be exponentially easier to get laid than to spend so much energy deciphering a woman's inscrutable signals), and yet this is a very strong issue for me. How can any president of mine want to create an amendment barring any person from the "most fundamental institution of civilization."

Can anyone please explain to me how that makes any sense?