Same song, another verse …

Since all the other problems and threats facing this country have been resolved, I guess the social conservatives have nothing better to do than start reintroducing all their “Stop Those Nasty Gays!” Bills (usually titled as “Defense of Marriage” legislation). *sigh*

Saying protecting traditional marriage is the “most significant domestic issue of the decade”, a [Colorado] Republican state lawmaker said Thursday that the Legislature should give voters a chance to vote on a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage and civil unions.

Apparently Terri Schiavo (and, I guess, abortion, the war on drugs, and social security) is now Old News. Protecting “traditional marriage” (complete with handfasting ceremonies, dowries, publication of the banns, and droit du seigneur, one assumes) is now the “most significant domestic issue of the decade.” Who’da thunk?

Since I don’t feel like rehashing all the old arguments I’ve made on the subject (though I probably will again before long), allow me to suggest this:

I have no particular gripe against Ms. Lopez, Ms. Spears, or Pitt-Aniston, but surely they do not merit the privileges and protections of state-sanctioned marriage more than mature, committed gay couples. Based on the behavior of these celebrities and at least half of married America, it seems that heterosexual marriage is more of a glass house than a fortress.

It would be refreshing to have a dialogue about what is wrong with heterosexual marriage today rather than what might be wrong with homosexual marriage tomorrow. As our laws currently read, we encourage marriage in the case of heterosexuals regardless of their age, maturity or financial stability. In North Carolina, a 14-year-old child may marry if the girl is pregnant or gives birth.

Let’s be clear: Children under the age of 21 cannot procure alcohol; children under the age of 18 cannot vote; children under the age of 15 cannot drive; but a child aged 14 can enter into a legally binding union with another child in North Carolina — if the girl is pregnant. And it’s the committed gay couples we need to worry about?

… and …

Thankfully, we never amended the constitution to etch the bigoted notions of “separate but equal” or anti-miscegenation into permanent law. If we had, it would have been that much harder to take the critical steps toward enlightened equality that marked much of our nation’s progress in the late 20th century. If we had relied upon archaic notions of “naturalness” — a favorite word used by supporters of the amendment proposed by Forrester and Smith — women would not be permitted to vote, own property or work outside the home today. Constitutional amendments have always been passed in an effort to protect or broaden the rights of American citizens, not take them away.

Yeah. What she said.

(via Jayseae)