Gay fellow Americans, you are welcome to it.
THE EVER ERNEST Charles Krauthammer in Pandora and Polygamy moves faster than the speed of blather in advancing the notion that gay marriages in the chapel will let polygamy come out of the closet in a rocket. As that serial monogamist Scarlet O'Hara would say, "Well, fiddle-dee-di."
We've got a lot of problems with marriage in this country, but can't we take a step back and draw a deep breath, smell the winds of change and admit that Gay Marriage is a done deal? It's here. It's queer. So what?
Enough with all the whining and carping and running about with one's hair on fire screaming, "Oh! Gay Marriage. I got the fear!" If a couple of normally insane Americans want to get a bunch of friends or Elvis impersonators together, seek out a whompingly liberal priest, rabbi, minister, or Marryin' Sam to hitch them up... again, so what?
Speaking as a twice married, twice disappointed, compulsively heterosexual male, I have heard the arguments and seen the yearning and felt the love of gay and lesbian couples from sea to shining sea. All they want is to be allowed their right, at long last, to enter the Holy Realms of Sanctified Matrimony. And I say: "Bring.... It.... On! Get... Down!" It is the morning of a decade of fabulous parties in America, and not a moment too soon.
As someone with not a little experience inside the obsessions, the compulsions, the addictions, the rages and the long-term quiet desperation of marriage, let me say that I cannot wait to welcome my gay brothers and sisters to the Holy Realm of Sanctified Bliss. I believe with every drop of rain that falls that any two or three or four or more of gay, straight, quadrogendered, pawed or tentacled Americas that want to get into a marriage should not only be encouraged, but tossed headlong into the institution before they sober up and snap out of it.
Looked at in the right light, there's a lot in this Gay rush-to-nup for everyone in this country. Going in there's a major boost to the retail clothing and footwear industries. Our financially floundering churches ( It's not a real weddin' lessen it be a church weddin'. ) are going to get enough in donations to morph themselves into cathedrals. Cathedrals are going to have a five year waiting list. Forget about getting any caterers above the level of the Second Avenue Deli for the duration. They will be either baking enough caviar canapes to drain the Black Sea, or out shopping for Gulfstreams.
Salmon will become an endangered species, as will wedding singers. Wedding planners will charge more than Bill Gates' estate lawyers and they'll get it. You want any Spode china, 500-count Egyptian cotton sheets, or monogramed towels? Better snap them up now. Ditto the booking of weeks at any spa resort that offers in-room jacuzzis. Vacations to anywhere other than Bike Week at Daytona are right out too. And even there you'll probably have to sleep on the beach. Don't even mention the word "Disneyland" to your kids for a decade. (See, you just saved about $7,000 right there.)
Then there's the after effects. Have you been thinking about redoing your window treatments, and perhaps junking that Santa Fe look for something crypto-modern you saw in Dwell. Forget it. Every decent interior decorator in the hemisphere is going on a honeymoon, and not taking on new clients until his or her own window treatments are made new. Relax. With a few push-pins and those monogrammed towels, you should be able to weather the storm.
Speaking of storms, brace yourself and do not be fooled by the return of peace and quiet to these states. Once the initial tsunami of coast-to-coast gay marriage scours this fair land down to a series of moral nubs, a period of calm normality can only be enjoyed for, well, anywhere from 18 to 36 months before.... the Aftermath.
The Aftermath is when the millions of gay believers who have thrust themselves into the sylvan dream of wedded bliss.... wake up to find out that they are, Aieeeee!, married. And when they do, they will want what nearly every clear sighted heterosexual couple wants out of marriage these days, a divorce.
A good new-fashioned no-fault, but brimming with blame, divorce American style. Full of fights, slights, sullen silences, and a craving from the spouse for "my own space." This usually means either your space, or a space you will pay for one way or another. Because make no mistake about it. Whether it is a gay professionals' divorce, or a gay crackers' divorce, somebody's losing a beach house or a double-wide.
And to be a true American divorce it has to come complete with that must-have divorce fashion accessory, an expensive lawyer. This is not really the lawyer's fault. The lawyer has to be expensive since it is the only way he or she can continue to pay off their ex-spouse or spouses.
Alas, not only is marriage due to be a downer for hundreds of thousands of gays in the same way it is a downer for millions of straights, the non-stop depression generator of divorce is going to weave its old black magic without remorse or regard to sexual orientation or good intentions. And Krauthammer is "afraid" that all gay marriage will do is to open the door to polygamy?
Charles, Charles, Charles. Be not downcast. Do not despair. You are simply failing to see the entertainment value for tens of millions of your fellow divorced heterosexual Americans. Instead, picture their deep and abiding pleasure when they get to unfold a comfy lawn chair, pop a cold one and kick back to watch a stream of four-cornered gay divorces carom through the courts.
Charles, there may be a lot of fuming and fussing and fighting and hissy-fits down at the old Family courthouse, but out on the lawn we'll just be kicking it, betting on which one of sixteen snarling coon dogs comes out of the pack with all four legs still on.
Do you doubt that these little contretemps will make for big box office on all 40 screens in the vast multiplex of the American mind? I have three little words that make one big pitch: "Gay Divorce Court."
There's a reality show with more legs than ER. It that could launch a million office pools; probably some Vegas lines for the Brad Pitt vs. Tom Cruise de-fornication fiasco.
No, Charles, it is time you switched from boxers to Speedos for the gay decade ahead. Gay marriage is a done deal. It's time our gay brothers and sisters stopped having the ACLU pay for their legal battles, and started to pay for some of their own.
Gay Americans say that without marriage they are, like the slaves of yesteryear, only half-a-person. Let us remove all impediments to their assuming of whole-person-hood, so that at least half of them can learn that special feeling of being a whole person with half your previous net worth.
Gentlemen, start your vows.
Posted by Vanderleun at March 19, 2006 2:36 AM | TrackBackA bit bitter, are we?
Posted by: Chris at March 19, 2006 3:49 AMAh, the truth!!! Gerard: You'd best put a treatment together for Gay Divorce Court now and start shopping it so you can reap the rewards tomorrow of your efforts today.
It's a nasty business. I always wanted a career woman with her own life that didn't have the need to procreate so we would live in luxury and with the freedom to enjoy it. Instead, I fell in love, compromised and now am the sometimes happy husband of a sexless wife and father of a loving, handicapped son. My sense of duty, a belief in the vows I took and committment to finish what I started keeps our family together, but I have learned two big lessons that all hapless people under the intoxicant of lust should heed: 1. Stick to you ideals and don't let "love" cloud your thinking, because 2., you're responsible for for your own happiness and your spouse theirs. The moment you rely on someone else to provide your happiness and make your day full (or your spouse does), you're screwed.
Posted by: markh at March 19, 2006 7:00 AMThis is but Step #1 in the ultra-secret Democratic Party hidden agenda of Mandatory Gay Marriage for all Americans. And you, of all people, fell for it.
Posted by: Don McArthur at March 19, 2006 7:06 AMSo let me get this straight Gerard, you're in favor of hearing even MORE from these folks that make up just 4% of the population? They are already insufferable, let alone having to see and hear more from them by even giving them this "right to suffer" like the hetero population? I think not....I'm so tired of their whining and complaining, let alone their "specialness" I could throw up. Gerard, do you honestly think that if the gays were given the "church wedding" their whining would stop???? If you do, I have a bridge to sell you.......
Posted by: moondog at March 19, 2006 7:21 AMSeveral gay guys of social aquaintance have taken me to task, at great length, about the unfairness of no gay marriage down here.
I told them that most straight guys of their age WISH there was a legal reason they couldn't get married.
Moondog, I don't think Gerard is offering marriage rights to gays so they will feel even more special. He's offering to let them suffer and be heartbroken, then bankrupted by the divorce industry, the same as us straight folks. Instead of indulged pets for the glitterati, they'd be normal people with standard issue complaints.
Personally, I'm in favor of marriage rights as punishment for gays going mainstream. Encouraging the social darlings into matrimony may bring proper attention at last to the injustices of divorce and hasten the day when the dysfunctional, criminal and just plain greedy can't use the legal system to torture the healthy and loyal among us.
If Gerard can peddle the idea for Gay Divorce Court, I want to be the script consultant for "impact on the children." Their sufferings may be different in the aftermath of gay marriages, but suffer they will. If politically correct politicians and celebrity bigmouths gave some of their attention to the 50% of kids who end up missing a parent, things might change for the better. Sadly, we must conclude that is not their real mission.
Posted by: AskMom at March 19, 2006 9:46 AMGerard, you really screwed the pooch on this one. The idea that marriage is about love is probably the stupidest view of all. Get a grip, take a breath and repeat the mantra, "Society is for the sake of children, not adults and not sex." We are social for the benefit of offspring otherwise we might as well be bears.
The belief that homosexuals are suffering because society won't applaud their anal, oral sex, and otherwise perverse acts and bless them with marriage certificates is just plain absurdity. Boo hoo. You might as well start insisting that pedophiles have been unfairly treated, too, and if they find a place or pass a law making thir "love" legal, what's your problem with that?
Really, use your head.
Posted by: mark b at March 19, 2006 10:11 AMMark,
Have you ever noticed that whenever a politician says "It's for the sake of the children" something truly terrible is afoot?
Ah reverse-psychology! Nothing like the downside of the upside to get everybody on board. I suppose in the end that this is what we wish the Iraqis: freedom to vote so that at long last instead of tyranny they can suffer the inevitabilities of K Street scandals. I suppose in that spirit the wealthy should give away their money so that the poor can experience the devastation of probate.
As for myself, I prefer good old-fashioned opposition to disingenuous brotherhood.
On the other hand, none of us really suffer much of the indignities of arranged marriages. It's not a serious business or a social contract even between families any longer. It's all about the couple - so long as a couple is happy then it's all to the good of society right? That sounds to me merely inches away from nihilism. Gay marriage is nothing more than the revenge of the screen kiss manquee, the lost Oscar for Too Wong Foo made legal at last. All that politicization of eloping, as if parents don't matter - as if nothing matters but the wedding at the end. It's like the ending of 'My Man Godfrey'. Forget the madness, nothing remains ridiculous if you marry it off.
No today marriage is all about the semiotics of modern romance and the duplicity of the public celebration of private coupling - all vicarious and weepy. No, there isn't much to be lost by the standardless marriage. After all, the only public honor left among Americans is in military service, n'est-ce pas?
All is fair in love and war, and anything done in service of those notions should be equally rewarded and respected, no matter what. So long as the public and legal celebrations are done appropriately what difference does ones' orientation make? None over here at the Digest apparently. Why? Well because in the end it's all shit, and we might as well put lipstick on it all. Nothing's sacred, therefore everything might as well be.
At this point, were I not educated in the sciences, I would have a nicely devastating quote dripping with irony that would show my expression of contempt for the endorsement of show-weddings has a long and illustrious history. But all I can do is hope they decide for a different finger ring lest I be mistaken for a bride.
Posted by: Cobb at March 19, 2006 11:35 AMOkay. That's it.
When you start dissin' the 2nd Ave. Deli amigo, you have crossed the line.
GOD would be pleased to have them cater HIS wake.
YOU would KILL for a corned beef on rye RIGHT now and you know it.
I'll say this, Katz's has better matzo ball soup, but that's it.
The 2nd Ave. Deli is one of THE best places to get grub on this here planet.
Take it back Gerard.
Say you're sorry.
What were you thinking man?
Lettin' them metaphors run away with your brain?
Sheesh.
BTW. Out there on the back way to Everett, on Aurora, is a place called Bill's. Can't miss it. Right hand side. They got a hamburger that is bigger than the plate. Hand-pressed and Angus beef.
It rocks.
Stop there on the way to that 'flea market' in Lynnwood on a Saturday. At the old Lynnwood Drive-In Theater.
You'll have to double back a bit.
But you'll be glad for the digestion time.
Posted by: Steel Turman at March 19, 2006 11:53 AMOkay, I'm Sorry .
Posted by: Gerard Van der Leun at March 19, 2006 12:04 PMSure. But with either two men or no men, how would the Divorce Court know who to screw?
Posted by: Cappy at March 19, 2006 1:00 PMGerard, don't worry about polygamy. Having three wives is bad enough, paying alimony to three x-wives simultaneously is even worse.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg at March 19, 2006 1:49 PMAlan, I'm only surprised that you haven't vaporized to Belize so as to avoid being a life support system for three leeches. It just amazes me that when judges award alimony to make up for the financial support women have come to expect, they don't order the women to go around to the man's house, make dinner, do the laundry and give him a blow job twice a week to make up for what HE has come to expect. Perhaps it's because judges know men don't actually get or expect that from their wives........
In a previous life I tried to slap some sense into the heads of "legislators" who were making laws that were all about money and never about kids having the right to a DAD. The worst case ever is THREE men paying child support for a child who was never allowed to have any contact with any of them.
That boy's idiot mother and the bound-for-hell lawyers who helped her destroy her own son are the ultimate poster children for our foolishness. Gay marriage isn't the issue. Tenacity, courage, loyalty and love - in the sense of work and respect - are the issues. I doubt gays will do any better or worse in these regards than any other humans, whether we call their unions marriage, or sin, or something between.
Posted by: AskMom at March 19, 2006 3:07 PMAskMom,
Many hours later.............
the difference, for the most part, is that we heteros have learned to suffer in silence with a minimum of public displays (the child support when you are not the father, etc. being the exception) the "flamboyant" crowd will not only make public their suffering to assure us of their "normalcy" but will increase the volume so that we can share their suffering....hell, they do it now for their diseases...................
"I have to pay because you just had to put your what in some disease ridden where?"
Please, spare me the agony let alone the next group up the discrimination pole...
"I love my dog....REALLY love my dog"............
A pox on you Gerard for introduucing the concept of making money on my pain...............treatment shmeatment, rob a bank, run for congress, sell me amway...anything but more of Queer Guyths are the Married Guyths (that was a lisp)
"Twice disappointed"? Please tell me that this only means twice-married and not actually twice-divorced...
If the latter, then both Bill Clinton and I feel your pain. And I'm even serious about it!
Posted by: Erich Schwarz at March 20, 2006 12:11 AMBrilliant.
Posted by: daoulas at March 20, 2006 8:32 AMTo Vanderleun:
I disagree. The idea of "gay marriage", or rather the blithe, breezy acceptance you give to it, repulses me in a visceral way that I cannot deny. The attitude you've expressed is to be challenged in every possible way. This issue is serious, and hits at the core of human life.
Posted by: Johannes at March 20, 2006 7:20 PMOn what basis is gay-marriage an 'equal-rights' issue? Under the definition of marriage as a heterosexual I cannot marry same-sex either.
Back when I was 20 yrs of age (I'm now 44) I was once seduced by orthodox feminisms cause for equalization, blindly believing the cause was just. Now that I have aged I now can see I was bombarded back in my 20's by emotional blackmail(ex., if you are against abortion this ipso facto means you want to send females back to the oppressive kitchen suffering from the dark ages of patriarchy parasitic pregancy) I was led to believe in a cause which I later learned was built upon manipulative lies (it's just a clump of cells, no meaning, no big deal. Further, She was never raped!)
I'm not going to be emotionally blackmailed again into supporting a cause which manipulates the definition of words and their meanings in order to impose a Collectivist secular Marxist agenda.
The one who opened my eyes to the destructive collectivist agenda happened to be a homosexual who abhors the Gay movement, hates the word Gay, is over the rainbow because he saw that the real agenda by these socialist activists was not equality but to strip away homosexual identity much like same activists stripped away the identity of womenhood.
As a women I can relate to his experience of being used by the collectivist cause.
There can be no Liberation under the constraints of Equalization.
Gay marriage? I believe that all marriages should be performed in an atmosphere of joy and gayness. The kind of thing gay meant before homosexual deviants hijacked the word to soften the ugliness of what it is that they do. Yea, it is not "who they are" but "what they do" that is important. And no matter how many propagandists try to convince people that it "isn't a choice...", it damn sure is.
You don't reward disgusting and sick sexual deviants by trying to make them acceptable. They need something to help unscramble their addled psyches, not underwrite their perversions.
Posted by: Michael at March 22, 2006 2:38 PMSomehow I doubt that mothers in law would permit such a union. Who wants to have to deal with suich a "daughter in law. You underestimate the power of mothers.
Posted by: TJ Jackson at March 24, 2006 8:30 PMGerard--
Where did you find all these paleohomos anyway? For every one of these clowns despising homosexuality, you just know they've got some hideous undivulged kink that makes coprophagia look like a church picnic.
The state has no legitimate interest in regulating sexual pair-bonds. It has a very critical interest in the creation of stable households that pool their assets, produce a surplus income for capital formation, invest prudently, create demand for goods and services, and provide for the care of minor issue, if any. All the rest is superstitious nonsense.
The notion that the only socially acceptable household is a male/female pair-bond animated by sexual attraction (or worse, for the sole purpose of procreation) is neanderthal. Successful households can be formed from any number (including more than 2)or relationship of consenting adults, for purposes that have nothing to do with romantic attachment or breeding.
Polygamy? The more the merrier! Incest? The family that plays together stays together! Bestiality? Hey, it's a dog eat dog world!
Seriously; an it harm none, do what thou wilt should be the whole of the law.
Posted by: Alan Chamberlain at March 3, 2007 8:36 AMThat;s my view of the matter.
Posted by: Gerard Van der Leun at March 3, 2007 1:21 PM"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper N.B.: Comments are moderated to combat spam and may not appear immediately. Comments that exceed the obscenity or stupidity limits will be either edited or expunged.