DOMA is Dumba

< back | next >

DOMA is Dumba

Forgive me for only recently becoming riled up on this issue, as I was not gay in 1996 when DOMA was passed. I’m still not, but the proposal of an amendment to put DOMA’s terminology into the constitution has brought the issue into the foreground area of my mind (unless that’s not the part of the brain that actually thinks about constitutional amendments. I’m not all up on the lobes).

Background:

DOMA is the acronym that stands for the “Defense of Marriage Act,” passed in 1996, which did two things. First, it said that each state has the right to decide whether or not it will accept a gay marriage – performed in another state – as valid in their state. So a gay couple from Minnesota can go get married in Massachusetts, but when they get back home to MN, they could still be considered single entities. Second, DOMA states that the federal government only recognizes the word “marriage” to apply to couples of disparate sexes, i.e. man/woman.

Present:

On July 14, 2004, the senate voted on a bill – introduced by Senator Allard of Colorado – which would make a constitutional amendment out of the second part of DOMA (it would effectively negate any need for the part where the states decide whether or not to accept gay marriages, since the federal government would not recognize them). It didn’t pass, but we’re told that the issue will not go away and will be brought up again in the fall.

Commentary:

All of this sounds bad enough as it is, but what makes me the angriest is the way this legislation is being presented. The very name “Defense of Marriage Act” would have us believe that homosexuals intend to not only get married to each other (egad!) but to destroy heterosexual marriage while they’re at it. I suppose by throwing hors d'oeuvres and hair products at straight couples as they come bounding down cathedral steps, all innocent and unaware of the impending doom.

But, oh, we must preserve and protect “traditional” marriage! It is in danger! Oh my, oh me! Well, yes. It is in danger; don’t doubt that for a second. But not from gay people. It’s in danger of extinction all on its own merits – or lack thereof. The only thing attacking “traditional” marriage is that the “tradition” of remaining faithful to one person for life isn’t as much fun as the practice of sleeping with anyone we want, regardless of rings. The “tradition” of talking out problems has been squelched in favor of screaming out insults. This is a culture of immediate gratification and fickleness. Do you really think a person who won’t wait five minutes for a cheeseburger will spend 50 years with the same person?

Additionally, people are just not the same today as they were in the ‘50s. What woman today would enjoy having her husband treat her like a maid and nanny (and blow-up sex doll on Saturday nights), while he stayed out all night screwing his secretary, and she looked the other way, whistling to herself while she washed the dishes and scrubbed the floors and prepared the pot roast every night? I sure as heck wouldn’t, and I don’t know a lot of women who would. But that’s “traditional,” you know. You bet your sweet bippy it is! And I want no part of it. Oh, I’m sure a lot of men would prefer things were still that way. And that’s one reason a lot of men don’t stay married for a lot of years. Marriage isn’t all the brochures make it out to be, no matter your sex, religious affiliation, age, or income. It’s just plain hard. For everyone.

Hey, I know: What if we heterosexuals just preserve our own marriages and let homosexuals preserve theirs? How would that be? Then we could compare failure rates 30 years down the road and see whose were higher. It’s pretty tough to beat 50%, but let’s give them a shot, shall we?

You may have noticed by this point that I loathe marriage in general, which is one reason I say anyone who wants to enter into that living hell is welcome to it. In fact, I feel sorry for gay people if this legislation is ever overturned, because then they’ll be just as miserable as the rest of us suckers. They won’t be “gay” anymore. Ooh! You see? I’ve solved everything. All those in favor of denying gay people the right to marry should reconsider, on the grounds that marriage causes gay people not to be gay, and, let's face it, that's what these nay-sayers really want. There you go. The end.

No, really. What more is there? I’ve fixed it. On to world peace!

poetry | prose and stuff | pictures | grammar | recommendations | rants | links | what's new | FAQ | email me