Haven’t felt this good the day after an election since Clinton won his second term. The day after the 2004 election, in fact, I dressed in black and took a vow of silence. This was a bit tricky as I was working the desk at my library, but it was a specialized academic library and most of the patrons understood. We used gestures and Morse code to communicate. (Kidding about the Morse.) And it wasn’t tricky at all in my classes. My professors all understood why I wasn’t speaking.
Today I took no vow of silence, and I almost wish I hadn’t dressed in black. I look sexy in black, see, is the thing, so I can’t possibly regret it. (Of course I look sexy in everything I wear. Right? Right.) I’m thrilled we took the House, and it looks like we may take the Senate, and best of all, Rumsfeld is stepping down. It’s the best thing that’s happened since Ashcroft stepped down.
But there is one bit of bad news: Virginia voted to write discrimination into the constitution. Our new amendment states that marriage, and the rights conferred by marriage, is between one man and one woman and everyone else can go to hell. (This is a ver batim transcription. Honest.)
Gay couples? Sorry. Hetero but unmarried couples? Sorry. No rights.
Honest to Goddess, I can’t understand why people want it written into the constitution. If they disagree with the morality of unwed partners, then they can contol it in their places of worship. Attend a church that doesn’t sanction it, or a mosque that doesn’t sanction it, or join the Boy Scouts– but keep your moral attitudes off me. The constitutional amendment is a moral judgment, and in this country, we keep religion and state separate. (I swear, did none of these people study American history?)
The 1 man:1 woman supporters insist that gay marriage threatens the family. But– and forgive me, maybe I’m just obtuse– I don’t see how. Let’s say I pick a woman for a life partner: we can’t create kids on our own, sure. But let’s say I pick a man for a life partner, and we decide not to have kids. Is that immoral, too? What about old folks? Should they be prohibited from marrying? They can’t make babies either.
Or what if I stay single forever? I have a perfectly good uterus going to waste. Am I threatening anyone’s family?
If anything, I would think that pro-family types would encourage same-sex couples. Since they can’t home-grow their own kids, their best option is to adopt. And since the pro-family types want to make abortion illegal, that means there are going to be a lot of babies out there who need parents. There are already too many unadopted babies. Why not encourage gay couples to adopt the unwanted children of heteros? (Now if we could get cheap, widespread birth control out to the masses, and teach them how to use it, there might not be so many babies to choose from…)
Men and women will continue to marry and have babies. They don’t need a constitutional amendment to protect that right. (In China? Yes. In America? Have as many babies as you can pop out.)
At this rate I’m not going to marry anybody– man, woman, or otherwise– because I don’t want to support the state’s discrimination. So there. That’ll teach ’em.