GOP candidates insisted that no, no, they had nothing against gays, and were all for gay rights…as long as it didn’t entail actually giving them any. Santorum, as you might have surmised, encapsulated the hypocrisy with this nugget in last night’s debate:
“But just because you don’t agree with someone’s desire to change the law doesn’t mean you don’t like them or you hate them or you want to discriminate against them.”
Here’s the thing: people in opposition to gay rights are the ones desiring to change the law, and have done so. What else was DOMA (signed into law, to my eternal shame, by a Democrat) except institutionalizing discrimination? You want to defend marriage? Outlaw divorce. Or the Kardashians. But insisting that marriage can only be defined as a man and a woman? I’m sorry, I missed where in the Constitution that that’s anyone’s gøddámņ business, much less the government’s. I find it interesting that, for instance, defenders of the Second Amendment are quick to say that any infringement on their rights to buy an Uzi opens the door for the government to come in and confiscate all their guns. But nobody seems to wrap their noggins around the concept that allowing the government to dictate that people can’t marry someone of the same gender can easily be precedent for the government to dictate who can’t marry who based on psychological testing. Or who can’t have children, or how many children you can have. In some parts of this country there are still judges declaring that blacks can’t marry whites, and yet we’re okay with the government creating laws saying men can’t marry men and women marry women? Really?
But no, it’s the GAYS who want to change the law. No. They don’t. They want to have access to the rights that the Constitution already guarantees them and that their opponents are trying to take FROM them. That’s not abuse of a process. That’s simply justice.
PAD
Originally published August 16, 1996, in Comics Buyer’s Guide #1187
• 
Recent Comments