THE HOMEOWNER

Thursday, January 29, 2004
Copyright © Las Vegas Mercury

The Homeowner: Right stuff

By Mike Prevatt

I probably have no business talking about gay marriage. After all, I'm nowhere near marrying anyone. I've never had a real boyfriend. In fact, I'm just lucky to score a second date. But I am gay, and--God and a very un-particular fellow willing--will one day find myself in the position to ponder getting married.

However, some despots in our government think otherwise--including the president. Last week, President Bush decided gay marriage was worth a mention in his State of the Union address. Well, he probably didn't decide it was worth the mention as much as he got roped into it, given the political, judicial, social and cultural progress gays have made in the past year (including the recent victory in Massachusetts, where judges ordered a provision allowing gays to marry), and the vociferous response to said progress by the anti-gay far right and certain Republicans.

He mentioned that marriage is a sacred thing, and gay people--while still deserving of dignity--threaten that sanctity. So it must be protected. That's what the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act was set to do. But Bush argues that "activist" judges from certain states want to override that act and redefine marriage. Naturally, the government must protect marriage should these judges rule against the people's will--even "constitutionally," if needed.

The problem is, the people's will does not properly reflect the stance of the president or those anti-gay conservatives pushing for an amendment to the Constitution banning the federal recognition of gay marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships--or HJ Resolution 56, as it's known on the Hill. While, yes, a majority of the American people have remained against gay marriage, a majority also don't believe the Constitution should be amended to enforce that. In a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll, 38 percent of Americans approved of the amendment against gay marriage, and 58 argued that the matter should be left to the states. This may be why the president hasn't outright supported the amendment, nor has he defined what he means by "constitutionally" codifying marriage solely between a man and a woman. This is because he tries to be two different people at once: one who embodies his ideal of so-called "compassionate conservatism," and one who openly kowtows to the religious right.

Until recently, he's enjoyed the support of the Log Cabin Republicans, a group of homeowners who, despite the virulently anti-gay stance the GOP espouses, support the party, and Bush. I have to say, personally, these people make me seethe with rage. I can't knock them too far, because they're entitled to their political beliefs. However, they support an administration that has done its best to keep gay people down, despite Bush's attempts to avoid demonizing them. Their attempts to eradicate homophobia in the GOP have largely failed, and I don't believe they'll make a spit of difference when it comes to stopping this amendment.

However, hell is slowly freezing over. In the wake of the State of the Union address, they've announced that any decision supporting a gay marriage ban will likely cost him their loyalty. "Log Cabin will not stand by while anyone attempts to write discrimination into the Constitution. It is unnecessary and it cheapens our sacred Constitution," says the group's executive director, Patrick Guerriero.

Other non-Log Cabin conservatives have also spoken out against the amendment. Many--especially right-leaning media pundits--have argued that the states are the ones that must decide whether to recognize gay marriages. Vice President Dick Cheney said as much in a famous 2000 interview, also vocalizing the right for people to enter any sort of relationship they wish. (His daughter, Mary, is openly gay--and, sadly, quiet on the LGBT front as she campaigns for the Bush/Cheney ticket.) Citizens Outreach, a right-wing public policy organization, joined the gay lobbying organization, the Human Rights Coalition, in drafting print advertisements against the amendment. Even the author of the Defense of Marriage Act, former Rep. Bob Barr, is against it.

For an uncomplex man, Bush's noncommittal language toward gay marriage and the amendment to essentially ban it proves he can't apply his black-or-white philosophy to every issue, and that's a good thing. Still, he and his devotees in Congress can't be trusted. They've tried to run roughshod over both political opponents and even the American people when they had the chance.

The proposed Federal Marriage Amendment is hardcore. If passed, it would be the first constitutional amendment to refuse rights to a group of people. That's outright discrimination. All for what--preserving the sanctity of marriage? As others have already inferred, all Bush has to do is look at one of his few celebrity supporters, Britney Spears, to see how heterosexuals are devaluing that beloved institution.

The Homeowner appears biweekly. Send your comments and nude pics (especially if you look like Pharrell Williams) to oughtabeinporn@yahoo.com.