Sad News

Ironically on Father's Day, I'm announcing that my nine-year marriage with a wonderful woman is unfortunately coming to an end. At least according to professed marriage expert Dr. James Dobson. Last Monday, he was quoted of saying,

For more than forty years, the homosexual movement has sought to implement a master plan that has had as its centerpiece the utter destruction of the family. Barring a miracle, the family as it has been known for more than five millennia will crumble, presaging the fall of Western civilization itself.

Good thing, in light of falling poll numbers, a bitter fight erupting in Congress over the U.S. presence in Iraq, the news of a brutal My Lai-like murder of two dozen innocent civilians by marines and continued distress from Katrina that the president last week stumped for the anti-gay marriage amendment again. Any astute follower of politics knows that Bush used anti-gay prejudice to drum up support for his re-election campaign - for governor of Texas in 1998; he did the same in 2000 and his second re-election bid, this time for the presidency, only to allow the bogeyman to go back into the closet (pun intended). As one of the president's closest Texan friends said two weeks ago, "I don't think he gives a shit about it." However, for political expediency and the drumming up of conservative support for a raft of failed GOP policies, the far right wing of the Republicans was leading the charge again threatening to add the amendment that would "define" marriage. This amendment would be preceded by an amendment making the destruction of the American flag for political statements a federal crime. Where to start about these issues? First, this is continued evidence of an attempted fasco-theocratic movement in this country to mold, coerce and bend ALL citizens' modes of behavior and thought into a single, controllable Orwellian way of life, all of which is terrifying and (as of now) totally unconstitutional. Banning political speech? Scholars of the constitution know that only once was the constitution amended denying Americans' civil rights and freedoms and that succeeded so well that it was repealed (not to mention it was passed during a time of anti-German/European sentiment during WWI when pilloring the enemy also meant playing upon American xenophobia. Good thing that's all in the past). Onto the Dobson quote - obviously this well-intentioned and genuinely religious man's demagoguery has such holes that anyone other than a devout follower of him would see through them. Marriage as a monolithic institution for the last five thousand years? Old Testament leaders with dozens if not hundreds of wives; European nobility's marriage of cousins for the sake of consolidating wealth and power; millenia of arranged marriages only changing within the last two hundred years as middle class Americans broke from traditional custom and marrying (God forbid) for no other reason than love; countless statistics of marital rape and other forms of spousal abuse; the skyrocketing divorce rate and splintering of families (all judgments aside, the "breakdown" of families must be seen as an implied characteristic of marriage's definition). What exactly is Dobson talking about? Just exactly how will heterosexual marriage break down with the legalization of gay marriage? Straight people need no help with their failing marriages; how many divorced people do you know claim that 'gays made them do it'? Dobson's biggest failing is his inability to see that law in a modern nation has the role, not only of guiding social customs but to recognize changes in those customs and protect the freedoms and rights of all citizens; the denial of gays to marry (and just exactly how many people are we talking about anyway? A whopping total of five percent of the overall population? C'mon) creates a monopoly on a basic civil custom that the state should either open to all couples or get the hell out of. Now, Rick Santorum, if you're reading this, take your lame claim of people marrying animals, blah blah and stuff it. I don't see you starting an international effort to ban those wildly popular donkey shows in Tijuana. Nor do I see social conservatives attempting to ban gay relationships or even hetero pre-marital sexual acitivity. Isn't Mary Cheney already on her way to Hell in the eyes of Dobson and others? Aren't those also threats to the institution of marriage? Why not ban live-in couples? That's breaking down marriage as well; "getting the milk for free without buying the cow" as the cliche goes, doesn't hold up, especially in a time when many under forty desire lasting relationships but have seen their parents and grandparents fail in keeping their own marriages together. When fifty percent of straight marriages were ending in divorce (even among evangelicals), the argument for 'protecting' marriage falls flat. I've beaten this horse dead before, probably over a year ago, but it enrages me to see how GOP leaders push the agenda only when it helps rally the base only to ignore the issue after election time. It's a cheap and transparent way of manipulating people's prejudices for their own gain without any attempt to better society. The job of lawmakers, the executive branch and the judiciary is to keep society structured and together with as many people being included into the fold of social and national custom and practice. Until then, all the marital counseling, evening talks, bedroom intimacy, gift giving and emotional connecting are doing nothing to keep my wife and I from splitting. However, we are doing are best in protecting another tied and true American institution: we're in a legal fight for full custoday of our son. Gays are going to wreck him, too.
On a final note, is it ironic that the one state that as of now recognizes gay marriage (Massachusetts) also has the lowest rate of divorce in the nation?

This rant is based on the usually keen and insightful Rick Hertzberg's latest article in the June 19, 2006 issue of the New Yorker.

Happy 64th, Macca. I'd feed you as I still need you. Here's your postcard with greetings and please, have a drink on me. You are still the cute one and I'm sorry to hear about the news.