FMA

And now we turn to the battle against our own home-grown religious nuts. It's probably because of the fact that I live in the wonderful liberal oasis of Seattle, Washington that I find the whole debate over gay marriage so stupid, and consider its eventual recognition a foregone conclusion. The Senate debate would be a waste of the public's precious time even if the FMA had the slightest chance of passing. As it stands, it does not, so this whole charade is just a chance for Republicans to dress their bigotry up as principle while motivating the base. In a word: disgusting.

The legal case for gay marriage is open and shut: to the extent that marriage is administered by the government, the government cannot discriminate between homos and heteros.

The idea that we need to "defend" marriage from gays is nonsense. Gays don't want to destroy marriage, they want to share in it, and why shouldn't this be encouraged? The argument that the right is making, that if gays are permitted to marry it will somehow "weaken" or "profane" the sacred institution of marriage, is obviously preposterous. We heterosexuals have been profaning the sacred institution of marriage just fine by ourselves, thank you very much. Newt Gingrich, to name but one offender, certainly did his part to weaken and profane the institution when he traded up to wife number three. I mean, if you did a head count of all the Republican Congresspersons who oppose gay marriage, I’m sure a good third, probably more, are on at least spouse number two. Let’s protect marriage from those people.