Tuesday, August 17, 2004


This may be hard to believe, but the Bush administration and its culture war friends around the country have not gone far enough in their fight against gay marriage. They couch their amendments and referendums in the language of definition, that marriage can be only between a man and a woman. The talk is about protecting the sanctity of marriage, presumably including the multiple marriages of movie stars and others and arranged marriages of all sorts.

These efforts miss a most important target: marriages between gay men and straight women. These are unions headed for trouble. Governor McGreevey’s departure, after two opposite-sex marriages, illustrates the havoc these unions can cause, not only for families but for the politics of New Jersey.

As we’ve seen in literature, movies, and real life, a woman has little chance of holding such a marriage together. How can she compete? Becoming more alluring may have no effect. And keeping her husband from hiring a pretty young secretary is just wasted effort.

Undoubtedly many of the adherents of the policies of the Bush administration and its allies believe that gay people are naturally promiscuous and should remain that way.
This is of course not the case with poor people, since the administration is supporting and touting marriage as a cure for poverty.

If we had just had a constitutional amendment banning gay men from marrying women, think of all the pain and suffering that we could have saved for Judy Garland and her family. And Liza Minnelli's husband would never have been decked by her left hook.