Bending sacred bonds

Insurance companies agree: The most stabilizing forces in our society are the bonds of marriage.

When two people find the passion to commit to one another, the urge to perpetrate moving violations suddenly goes out the window — along with any lingering family suspicion of residence in the closet. But as you have heard, there is an attempt by queer folk to destabilize these bonds, the impious reality being that gays wish to mount the worthy body of marriage and have their way with it.

I realize that around Berkeley, there are not many people who support a ban on gay marriage. But could it be that Berkeley is caught up in some kind of depraved utopian fantasy where everyone is accepted as an individual shade of the erotic rainbow that constitutes human sexual orientation? Luckily, this sort of reluctance to pass judgment on the validity of others’ homosexual relationships is not tolerated in other parts of the country.

Where Berkeley and other urban areas might see a naughty rainbow of sexual orientation — each hue as genuine and as rightful as another — many Americans see a man and a woman. And oh, the gay. To these proud Americans, their perception is more like right and wrong than a wanton celebration of all the rainbow’s fabulous flavors. But really, who can blame regular Americans when the sanctity of marriage is at stake?

For the sanctimonious majority who defined marriage strictly as between a male and a female, the sacred union has somehow managed to retain its sanctity despite countless assaults upon it by divorce, hotter secretaries, Russian brides and the state of Nevada.

But now the deviants have gone too far — the threat posed by sexual equality is too great to ignore. Outside the cloistered castle walls, an assembling throng of gay couples looks to cast a pall on the very foundation of our society. If marriage is overrun by same-sex couples, who will pack the lunches, and who will mow the lawns? And how on earth will anyone remember an anniversary?

It’s these issues and likely many more that the proud Americans who have voted down gay marriage overwhelmingly in state elections point to when asked to defend their decision to forbid a social group the same rights they enjoy lawfully. If marriage is like a breakfast buffet, in at least 30 states where a traditional definition of marriage has been put to the people, voters have realized each time what is at stake and banned all-egg omelettes. And any hope for sausage on sausage pancake unions, too.

What must this say about the Americans who judge straight as great and gay as a need to pray?

It says they are scared. Scared for the impressionable young minds that would suddenly be bombarded for the first time with the enticing prospect of legal gay marriages. It’s just how kids are — they can’t resist the latest trend. Because of one sweep of the mighty judicial pen, youngsters once steeped in heterosexual dogma will no longer have to be obedient to their genetically and personally predisposed orientation to the opposite sex. It will be like a run on the bank, except with gay marriage, it will be a run on buzz cuts and douching products. You see, people don’t make the choice to just be gay, they will even choose to opt into the premium package, with all the peripherals and accessories. Yes, with gay marriage and straight marriage, it will be like choosing a cable package — do you want basic or do you want homosexual? Because the choice to like guys or girls has always hinged on the far-removed construct of whether the law defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

So certainly, America’s opposition to gay marriage is based on a quite logical fear. When an enemy of marriage inevitably says that gay marriage ban proponents act from a discriminatory, ignorant and empty set of values, you already know that in their perverted sense of reality, pro-gays won’t mind if humans go extinct. As the argument must follow, denying gays the right to marry is based on the homosexual influence that legal gay marriage would bring to impressionable young people. Without a ban on gay marriage, the resulting increase in sterile unions and the decline of traditional, breeding marriages will inevitably bring on the eventual collapse of the human race.

There is no other way around it — either gay marriage is okay or it can cause some kind of material harm to those who oppose it. The notion that people in large numbers would stand against happy, productive and stabilizing human unions on the grounds of a purely philosophical discord is silly. Sheer theoretical disagreement over the idea that gays should not achieve the same marital status everyone else can enjoy — and nothing more — basically amounts to calling the voting public bigots. Bigots! This is America, the land of the free. America recognized the inhumanity of human servitude and freed the slaves, allowed women and blacks the right to vote, and in recognizing the notion that marriage is not debased by interracial unions, our free country allowed blacks and whites to marry freely.

America is not a land of bigots. It only used to be.