Let Them Live in Sin

Beacon
Hill was alive with the loud chanting and hoarse shouts of thousands
of demonstrators from both sides of the gay marriage
divide this afternoon, as
the Massachusetts
Legislature took up the issue they tabled last month, and the Dowbrigade
was there. The entire central downtown area, the Common and the Public
Garden, were abuzz, knots of placard carrying out-of-towners trying
to figure out where they were, militant gay couples in
color coordinated jumpsuits and jaunty berets, cops with dogs, cops
on horses, cops on motorcycles, tour busses, first aid tents, tables
with informative flyers and lots and lots of camera and notepad wielding
members of the press.

The original idea appeared to have been getting the two sides to organize
around separate areas of the Common, but the two crowds had become
so intermingled that it was impossible to decipher which side had started
out as anti-Gay marriage and which Pro. Small groups on all sides were
arguing and discussing the merits of their positions. Many of them
were discussing the issue quite rationally, and seemed to be actually listening
to each other. Some were arguing quite vociferously, and a few were
shouting. Considerable numbers were surrounded by larger bunches of
co-believers, and avoiding members of the opposition.

The soundtrack was a cacophony of American protest; bull horns leading
chants, gospel hymns playing on a battery powered PA, shouts, cries
and curses, cheers and boos at unseen comings and goings. Hundreds
of signs. Everyone seemed to be on one side or another, or photographing
or interviewing those who were.

Absurd conversations were overheard. A well-dressed, clean cut youth
who could have been a  Mormon except he was missing a partner and
a name-shield was shouting at a smoldering young leather-clad Asian man,
"We have nothing against Gay people. We think that you should be allowed
to do whatever you want. Except get married. You are adults and
what you do behind closed doors is your business.  But out in public
you should respect traditional families and children!"

Biker-boy: "So what you’re saying is, you support sexual intercourse
outside of the sanctity of marriage?"

Unfortunately,
it looks like those who wanted an issue which could
confuse and divide America have found a doozy. Polls show most Americans
support equal rights for gays, including fully functioning "civil unions"
but
are against gay marriage. The problem is no one understands exactly
what the difference is, or how it will influence people to vote in November.
The Democrats are shitting bricks because while there are enough gays
in the United States to swing a close election most of them would vote
Democratic anyway, and lots of voters in key states would be turned off
by a full-bore endorsement of gay marriage.

It is all so ridiculous, at least to the Dowbrigade, that the elusive
national unity is about to be torpedoed by the difficulty in defining
a single word, and that gays are about to sacrifice their biggest step
out of the closet since Ancient Greece from a stubborn refusal to compromise
on a single letter.

Public opinion in the United States towards homosexuals has evolved
remarkably during the Dowbrigade’s lifetime. When we were kids "queers"
and "fags" were linguistically equivalent to "Japs" and "Nazis". Fighting
words. Now they have their own fashions, resorts and TV shows, and demonstrably
better taste than the rest of us.

In the proposed solutions to the gay marriage problem, at least here
in Massachusetts, gays have been offered complete equality in every aspect
of legal, financial and social approbation endowed by marriage. They
are being offered a complete and stereotype-shattering victory, a revolutionary
new role in the emerging America of the 21st century, and they are turning
it down over a linguistic snit.

Here is the exact wording from the proposed ammendment approved today
by the Mass legislature: "Civil unions for same sex couples are established
hereunder and shall provide entirely the same benefits, protections,
rights, and responsibilities that are afforded to couples married under
Massachusetts law. All laws applicable to marriage shall also apply to
civil unions."

What’s
in a name? Really, what difference would it make if it was called a "garriage"
when the two people are the same sex and a "marriage" when
they are not. What’s so great about the "M" word, anyway? Our personal
opinion is that the word "marriage" has been so misused and maligned
that gays should be delighted to start over with a clean linguistic slate
and a word
like "Garriage".

If Catholics or Evangicals find the idea of two men or two women uniting
in love so disturbing, then they needn’t sanction gay marriage in their
Church.  Which,
in fact, is exactly what they do with divorce, and that doesn’t;t prevent
millions of Americans, non-Catholics and Catholics alike, from untying
the knot. Let the Church in Rome simply not recognize those marriages,
but why should they prevent a couple of Jews or atheists from formalizing
their commitment?

However, gays must accept that many mentally challenged Americans may
balk at giving up their exclusive rights to the "M" word and leave them
that bone. They can afford to be magnanimous, they are getting everything
they have asked for and more.

If they can’t handle compromising on a single little letter, the Dowbrigade
says Let them Live in Sin.

all photos by the Dowbrigade