Untitled Document

Same-Sex Marriage Ban Is A "Gay" Idea, Say Many Politicians

by Scott Borchert and Dan Cory

Two weeks ago, in a surprisingly bi-partisan reaction, the US Congress failed to provide a majority vote to ratify a Constitutional Amendment, backed by President Bush, that would define marriage as the union between a man and a woman. Since then, members of both parties have sought to clarify their stance on the highly controversial issue, especially as the upcoming election looms closer.

For instance, many Republicans, although supporting the amendment in principle, cautioned members of the Senate and the President against moving too fast to resolve the matter of gay marriage within the Federal Government.

"This is really a gay proposal," said Representative David Drief (R-Calif.). "I would ask the Senate to consider taking more time before rushing to a decision on this matter and exercise restraint. As my track coach once told me, 'As long as the race may be, don't fag now.'"

In a statement to the Senate, Senator John McCain (R-Ariz) had this to say on the amendment: "How gay. What we need is economic stability if we want to strengthen family structure, so it's time to stop acting like a bunch of fags and get down to the real issues, and not add such a gay amendment to the Constitution."

But although opposition is strong -- sometimes even from their own party -- many Republicans do support such an amendment, stating that their constituents were united against giving gays the right to marry.

"Don't be such a homo," said Senator Orin Hatch (R-Utah) to McCain. "This issue does not need further discussion when the majority of Americans want to see it passed. After all, the majority of Americans aren't gay, you faggot."

In response to the defeat of his "gay" proposal, Bush has now decided to refocus his efforts upon maintaining the integrity of heterosexual marriages; at a recent press conference, he proposed a different constitutional amendment that would define divorce as the permanent separation between a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

"The union between a man and a woman is the most sacred bond on earth and must be protected at all costs," said President Bush in a statement to reporters. "But when a relationship between two queers begins to queer, I sure as shit won't get in their way."

Many religious leaders have also backed the President in his quest, such as the Reverend Jerome Mannold of Memphis, Tennessee, who called the proposal "A courageous move in the face of the flaccid morality of today."

"This divorce amendment sends a powerful message to the wives and children who think they can get a new daddy or a juicy divorce settlement just because their husbands happen to be cruel and abusive," he said.

But the proposal has gotten plenty of negative reactions -- indeed, surveys found that many wives who call themselves "average, everyday citizens" who just happen to be younger than their husbands by twenty to thirty years almost unanimously oppose the idea.

"That son-of-a-bitch Bush," said one such wife. "Now I'll actually have to wait until Jerry's dead."

"Looks like the pool boy's going to have to have to keep using the service entrance," she added with a sigh.

The proposed amendment is scheduled for debate in the House and Senate in the weeks to come, and though support seems to be lagging significantly, there are some who are willing to support the President as long as he makes a few concessions.

"If he includes a clause that also will relax the definition of adultery and infidelity," said Republican Senator Lincoln Chaffe from Rhode Island, "then he'll have my full support."

"Otherwise," Chaffe added, "this is going to be just another stupid, gay proposal that doesn't go anywhere, and just sits around fagging things up."

This Issue Home Contact Archives