The true (RAINBOW) colors of morality

I'm so happy that you could call me gay.

Today, the California State Legislature became the first lawmaking body in the country to approve marriages between homosexual couples.

The Los Angeles Times:

By the slimmest of margins, the California Legislature on Tuesday became the first in the nation to approve gay marriage. Lawmakers will now send the measure legalizing same-sex unions to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has hinted that he will veto it. The bill passed 41-35, with the minimum number of votes required......

The measure, by Assemblymember Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) would change California law defining marriage from "a civil contract between a man and a woman" to a "civil contract between two persons." Leno characterized gay marriage as the most important civil rights issue of the 21st century, and enlisted Dolores Huerta, co-founder of the United Farm Workers of America,and Alice Huffman, California president of the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People, to help him lobby undecided lawmakers.

It's good that I'm not currently under the influence [of caffeinated substances], because this would've made me overdose. I feel like I just had a double espresso macchiato.

New York Times quotes (via Associated Press) Geoff Kors, the executive director of Equality California:

''As the debate today shows, love conquers fear, principle conquers politics and equality conquers injustice, and the governor can now secure his legacy as a true leader by signing this bill,'' Kors said.

Bravo.

Now, for those fundagelicals (a term I picked up from DKos) raving about their children being subject to corrupting influences like the government making marriage gender neutral... I have a few questions for them...

1. Are you, your family, and/or your marriage threatened by the legal presence of homosexual couples? Any more so than the current presence of homosexual couples?

2. Do you believe that civil marriage, in a nation where about the half the couples divorce, is holy or sacred in this country?

3. How can you sleep at night knowing that you tried to deprive normal people of the same rights you are able to share with your spouse under the reason, "I don't feel comfortable with gay marriage"?

I, contrary to what some of y'all think, like boys, and so I happen to be straight. I say "happen to be" because I believe that homosexuality for the most part is biological. I'm okay when some people are bothered by that claim, since I will admit myself that there is no conclusive evidence (though convincing enough for me) for the nature of sexuality. But I'm not okay when people are willing to hijack a supposedly "moral" message and condemn people for harmless lifestyle choices. It's like abolishing vegetarian diets (though I suppose Teagle wouldn't mind that). I'm not too good about PDA (I love going up to couples I know making out before class, hitting them on the heads and saying, "Go to class, guys") in general, but if my gay friend wants to be with his partner in choice, I support him. If he wants to eventually get married like most of us will someday, I just want an invitation to his wedding.

I frankly have little patience for those who are so narrow minded as to NOT accept the idea of two guys or two girls in love. But I can accept it, or learn to accept it. It is difficult, however, when their supposed "moral leaders" show their values in surprising ways:

Sen. Rick Santorum said in a weekend interview that people who don't heed future evacuation warnings may need to be penalized, but said Tuesday he did not mean people who lack cars or other resources.

"At face value (Santorum's comments) show an incredible amount of insensitivity to the Gulf Coast," said Jay Reiff, Casey's campaign manager. "What exactly does Senator Santorum mean by imposing penalties on people who often times had no transportation and no place to go?"

Wow... Did he not have the BASIC HUMAN DECENCY to wait until the dead bodies of the victims were recovered? This from the quintessential moral conservative politician: he often touts religion as his basis for leadership, he wears his faith on his sleeve, and - to no one's surprise- is an adamant opponent of gay marriage. His editorial in the USA Today on July 9, 2003 is yet another testament to the hypocrisy that defines the "religious" neoconservative movement:

Every civilization since the beginning of man has recognized the need for marriage. This country and healthy societies around the world give marriage special legal protection for a vital reason — it is the institution that ensures the society's future through the upbringing of children. Furthermore, it's just common sense that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

"Common Sense," eh? That's about as legitimate as an argument as Christine's "But that's not *voice becomes whinier* FAIR!!!" Nope, I didn't pick and choose the worst possible argument from his op-ed piece- they were all pretty bad. I'm surprised that any reputable American media would publish this bullchip. Sadly enough, he is the quintessence of the "religious" neoconservative movement.

It doesn't take much to realize who truly possesses the values and principles so idealized and manipulated by the "moral majority"... Our fight for justice and equality isn't over yet, but it's only a matter of waiting for our inevitable victory.

I left out much of the arguments made on behalf of same-sex marriages because I didn't want to repeat too much of these previous Decafs. Two of them by me, one by Montague. Needless to say, Montague's is so much better, but mine's prettier and it has links!

06/08/05- Fruity : in response to MD Governor Robert Ehrlich vetoing a gay-rights bill
08/29/05- Look to Utah : Montague probably to appease a fuming Christie after an intense debate on a constitutional gay marriage ban
09/01/05- It's about time for good news : Senate passes AB 849