I wrote this hours ago, and I’ve debated whether or not I should post it. This is an incredibly divisive issue, and I’m sure that I will end up on more of those stupid boycott lists because of this, and that’s probably not the smartest business move, considering that I have a book coming out in less than two weeks . . . but I have to stand up for my beliefs, so here it is:
When I heard that George W. Bush had called for an amendment to the Constitution that would effectively codify homosexuals as second-class citizens, I recalled something Howard Dean said recently:
In 1968, Richard Nixon won the White House. He did it in a shameful way–by dividing Americans against one another, stirring up racial prejudices, and bringing out the worst in people.
They called it the “Southern Strategy,” and the Republicans have been using it ever since. Nixon pioneered it, and Ronald Reagan perfected it, using phrases like “racial quotas” and “welfare queens” to convince white Americans that minorities were to blame for all of America’s problems.
The Republican Party would never win elections if they came out and said their core agenda was about selling America piece by piece to their campaign contributors and making sure that wealth and power is concentrated in the hands of a few. To distract people from their real agenda, they run elections based on race, dividing us, instead of uniting us . . .
Dean was right. Just read that again, and replace “racial prejudices” with “sexual prejudices.”
I hate it when I agree with politicians, but John Kerry said what I thought as soon as I heard the news:
“This president can’t talk about jobs. He can’t talk about health care. He can’t talk about a foreign policy which has driven away allies and weakened the United States, so he is looking for a wedge issue to divide the American people.”
Personally, I don’t think the government should be involved in marriage in any way. I believe that marriage is between two people who love each other, who wish to make a commitment to stay together through good times and bad. I suppose that it can also be between those people and whatever god they choose to worship, but even then . . . wouldn’t it be stupid for the government to tell couples which god can bless their marriage? And who cares what sex they are?
An interesting thing has happened since San Francisco started granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples: my marriage is just fine!
That’s right. Even though there are thousands of gay and lesbian couples affirming their love for and commitment to each other, my marriage — my affirmation of love and commitment to Anne — isn’t threatened at all. As a matter of fact, the only people who can really “threaten” my marriage are . . . well . . . the two of us.
And this brings me to the first thing that’s so profoundly upsetting about this entire issue: it’s not about marriage, it’s not about love, it’s not about family, it’s not about commitment. It’s about hating homosexuals. It’s about treating homosexuals as if they are second-class citizens. It’s about dividing this country into those who support discrimination, and those who don’t. It’s about Karl Rove updating The Southern Strategy.
It comes as no surprise to me that, as part of that strategy, George W. Bush wants to take the Constitution, a document that is supposed to limit government and guarantee freedoms to all Americans, away from millions of our fellow citizens who are homosexual. I didn’t buy the “I’m a uniter, not a divider, compassionate conservative” bullshit during the 2000 campaign, and this is just another example of Mr. Bush revealing his true colors. And this argument that it’s a response to “activist judges?” That’s a huge load of crap too. Mr. Bush has a lot of nerve talking about “activist judges,” considering that he owes his presidency to five of them.
Ultra-Conservative writer Andrew Sullivan said it best, I think:
The president launched a war today against the civil rights of gay citizens and their families. And just as importantly, he launched a war to defile the most sacred document in the land. Rather than allow the contentious and difficult issue of equal marriage rights to be fought over in the states, rather than let politics and the law take their course, rather than keep the Constitution out of the culture wars, this president wants to drag the very founding document into his re-election campaign. He is proposing to remove civil rights from one group of American citizens – and do so in the Constitution itself. The message could not be plainer: these citizens do not fully belong in America. Their relationships must be stigmatized in the very Constitution itself. The document that should be uniting the country will now be used to divide it, to single out a group of people for discrimination itself, and to do so for narrow electoral purposes. Not since the horrifying legacy of Constitutional racial discrimination in this country has such a goal been even thought of, let alone pursued. Those of us who supported this president in 2000, who have backed him whole-heartedly during the war, who have endured scorn from our peers as a result, who trusted that this president was indeed a uniter rather than a divider, now know the truth.
Yes, I am shocked that I agree with Andrew Sullivan about anything, but that just illustrates how insane this idea is, and how it transcends political ideology.
Now, I have no doubt that this effort will fail. I believe that it will ultimately backfire on the Bush Administration, and contribute to his defeat in November. The United States just isn’t the Theocracy that Mr. Bush wants to create.
There is a wonderful opportunity here, though, that I haven’t heard anyone talk about, yet: we are now forced, as a nation, to acknowledge and confront the widespread discrimination against gays and lesbians, and I believe that Americans will unite against segregation now, just as we did during the Civil Rights movement.
I believe in America. I believe in the Bill of Rights, and the founding principals of this nation. I believe that goodness, compassion, and tolerance will triumph over hatred, bigotry, and ignorance.
And I am proud to stand up for these beliefs, whatever the consequences.
Amen to that, dude.
It can’t be said enough, or in enough places. It’s time for this publicly acceptable form of discrimination to become unaccaptable.
I think Bush really blew it on this one. It smells of desperation and division and flopsweat.
While polls (with carefully worded questions) show a majority of Americans opposing gay marriage, I suspect relatively few will go out of their way to support an amendment. It might firm up support in his base, but they’re true believers anyway. Those on the margins may roll their eyes and wonder what the hell they saw in this guy four years back.
There’s a good chance that this move will quietly disappear in a few weeks, just like Bush’s vague advocacy for a renewed space program.
I think the worst part in all this is that a judge, not sure which one, or what level he was in, said that banning same-sex marriages was anticonstitutional.
Dude, I live in San Francisco. I have visited the people in the lines during the first week, and I have spoken with them. The Hosexual Agenda is far more healthy than the Bush Administration Agenda.
Compare:
Homosexuals: Feed the cat
Bush Administration: Change the Constitution
H: Share their lives with someone they love
B: Topple regimes in the middle-east
H: Have families, raise good children
B: Prevent condom use
H: Get married
B: Make it government’s business to save your soul
President Jackass can’t go bye-bye soon enough for me.
The likelikhood of this happening this year is very small, since nobody in Congress (apart from a few extremists) is going to want to wrangle through the issue in an election year. The fact that the President would support such an Amendment is horrifying, but not at all surprising.
Those who think there is no difference between the parties have got to examine their convictions very closely in light of this (as if the last four years weren’t enough). Do you really think President Gore would have done such a thing? Special interests rule the two parties, it’s true, but the over-simplification of Nader and his ilk are truly culpable in this current mess.
Look at the pictures from SF. Look at the happiness, the love that pours out at you. If that’s a threat to your marriage, I think you have way worse problems than homosexuals to worry about.
I live in Ontario, where gay marriages have been legal for a few months now. And I can tell you, society hasn’t collapsed.
Well said!
Good lord. I wrote “Hosexual” instead of “Homosexual”. My bad. Funny, but my bad.
You knew what I meant.
Good for you, Wil. I’m rapidly losing hope in my country, my government, and my fellow Americans, (never had any hope for my current president) but I’m glad you haven’t lost hope yet.
Wil–
I start visiting your site as “Stand By Me” and “ST:TNG” fan — but now I read your blog DAILY because of what you have to say, as a POLITICAL ACTIVIST and as a FAMILY MAN.
I agree with essentially everything you said in the article.
–Allan French, Silicon Valley, CA
(living in what used to be a “hi-tech mecca”; but that was before George Dubya f*cked it up and The Terminator rescued us from No-Gray-Matter Davis)
[[Yay, I’m among the First Few Posters today (I think).]]
This is a very evil strategy.
The amendment has no hopes of passing Congress, let alone being ratified by the states, and conservatives know this.
That is why I don’t think it will backfire–there will be only limited criticism from the right. So, as you say, the strategy really is to divide America, because Bush has few or no positives to talk about.
Wil Wheaton for president! (Well. When he’s old enough, anyways)
Discrimination is discrimination, regardless of whether it is sexual or racial or religious.
Very well worded posting Wil. You would make an excellent Canadian! 🙂
Love your work, and I will definately be buying your books.
Great post Wil. The thing that infuriates me is that the drive to let homosexuals be married isn’t about forcing churches to marry them. Any given church can decide not to marry a homosexual couple if it wants. This is about allowing a couple to pursue that, either at a church that does support it or via a County Clerk or whatever. No one on the right wants to acknowledge this. They want to make it out like its an attack on amrriage and next thing you know we’ll be marrying our dogs and letting potted plants vote and then Western Civilization will fall… Criminey.
Here’s a fun link for you
http://www.rmpn.org/content/index.cfm?fuseaction=showContent&contentID=53&navID=51
The “fidelity pledge” was sent to all lawmakers who are supporting this amendment. It asks them to add to the amendment a provision making divorce illegal, because if this is TRULY about ‘defense of marriage’ then divorce should be illegal too.
The silence of the hypocrites is deafening….
Thank you. I’m surrounded by people who disagree with me when I say some of the exact things you said here. It’s nice to feel a little less alone…
wil, what’s the opposite of boycott? cause that’s what i’m gonna do with your site. well said, and inspiring… it’s good to know that people take time and effort to see through the bullshit.
ps/ i live in ontario too. since gay marriages became legal, i’ve actually gotten a raise at work! maybe gay marriages had something to do with this too!?
RELAX. For a constitutional ammendment to pass, it must be approved in congress by a super-majority which means 2/3 of congress must vote for it. Then 2/3 of the states must ratify it by a 2/3 in favor vote. When was the last time you saw ANYTHING get 66% of the vote? I don’t think you could 2/3 of the people to vote that chocolate tastes good.
I’m a Republican. I’m not a believer in many of the Liberal viewpoints, but . . .
. . . an Amendment to the Constitution?!?!? What is he thinking (as if). It makes me want to go out and marry a guy.
Mike
http://www.lindenwald.com
Thank you, Wil. You were eloquent, and you are right. This isn’t about protecting the sanctity of anything – it’s about hate and about fear and about getting a man that has done nothing at all for the average American over the past 4 years reelected. I can only hope that a majority of Americans, no matter how they feel about gay marriage, can begin to recognize that. Bravo!
One of my closest friends (who happens to be gay) and I were talking about the weddings that have been taking place in this beautiful city that I live in (San Francisco)… The support that Mayor Newsom has granted on gay marriages was I thought a great move, and I had no hesitation when it comes to expressing it to my friend. For some reason, I assumed automatically, that because he’s gay, that he’d want the same rights as straight people have, which in this case is the right to marry the person you love.
I was completely taken aback when he told me that he is against it. He feels like marriage is simply a formality, and nothing else. He further explained that marriage is something between God and the couple…
Somehow I agree with him. Politics and religion mixing together have created this whole mess that our country is in- I think this is the primary reason why marriage loses its sanctity in the first place.
Very well written Wil. Your eloquence, intellect and ethics are enviable and commendable. Although I’m Canadian, I’ve lamented every single day of Bush’s term as President – you’ve outlined just one more reason to do so. Internationally, we all would have been better off with Gore. Best wishes with JAG. Take care Wil.
Right on Wil!
As despicable as GWB’s actions and statements are, I don’t really think that they are idealogically motivated. If that were true, then he would have proposed this right after he was sworn into office. This is clearly political grandstanding in an election year. He knows as well as anyone that there is a 0% chance of actually passing this in the current political climate.
One positive note is that the Bush White House is very likely worried about their re-election prospects. What I’ve been worried about for the past year is that he was going to continue his “war for re-election” strategy and start a military build-up in Israel. This clearly bogus constitutional amendent thrust is perhaps evidence that they will, for the time being at least, actually pay attention to what the voters want.
I hope that the Democratic party is wise enough to not be distracted, and keep to the real point at hand. “We don’t support your ammendment, Mr. Bush, but remind us again of your rationale for invading Iraq. What evidence did you have at that time to justify this invasion? How many American soldiers have died since you declared Victory in Iraq?”. I’m hoping that Mr. Dachle (from my home state, whom I’ve met) and the other leaders of the Democratic party will keep a cool head and keep to the real issues.
Amen, Wil. I never thought I’d be agreeing with Democrats _or_ republicans (I’m sick of both), but Howard Dean, John Kerry and Andrew Sullivan are all correct.
This shouldn’t be a political issue, either at the federal level, state level, or any other level for that matter. It should be a given that people have the right to choose, be they straight, gay, lesbian or bisexual. They have just as much right to freedoms as anyone who is a citizen of this great, yet floundering nation of ours.
I encourage all WWdN readers to vote this November. And please, for the love of Pete, Don’t Vote For Bush. To do so is to hand our country over to special interests, and give up all our freedoms, not just those of a minority…
Does this remind anyone of Bush’s father’s term? We were all embroiled in the Iran-Contra scandal, horrible things were happening around the world, and here’s Bush Sr., waving his hand like a magician, saying “Don’t burn the flag!” Um… What? Aren’t there bigger issues going on? “NO! Keep watching my hand waving and don’t burn the flag!”
It just seems very… diversionary…
Well said, Wil!
I was wondering if you’d speak up about this, and I’m glad to hear you did.
Can I get a Hallefuckinglujia? Can I learn to spell? Will Lassie make it in time? Have I been saying that GW was going to go too far for even his ultra-Conservative lackeys for the last 4 years? Do I (pretty much) agree with everything you’ve said in this entry?
It’s a flurry of yeses from start to finish, and I’m going to go tell my friends to stop making fun of me for obsessively reading your blog – this entry alone redeems me.
Eric
As usual the point was missed. Bush said that he supported “civil unions” on the state level. The problem is the attempted redefinition of the word marriage. Marriage has always been the union of a man and a woman. Gay people can get married all they want, so long as it is to someone of the opposite sex, that’s the freaking definition.
I don’t have a problem with ‘civil unions’ why should anyone else?
Well said. My only beef would be with “I believe that marriage is between two people who love each other, who wish to make a commitment to stay together through good times and bad.” What about people who want to get married for other reasons, or who want to be married to more than one person? I mean, if you want to be REALLY tolerant and open-minded, then you gotta broaden this definition of marriage to include polygamy, be it polyandry or polygyny. But I say do what you will.
ROCK ON! I could not agree with you more…
Brian:
Just for the record, after the amendment is successfully proposed, 3/4 of the states must ratify it to become part of the constitution (not 2/3). The gory details are at the US Constitution FAQ.
The process is hard, by design.
well said Wil. Well said.
yes Wil yes! All my online groups are talking and dealing with this issue. and I am sure that like you said this will no doubt backfire but the audactity is scary!
Furthermore if you check the whitehouse press release today he is asking for biblical guidance! So looking at genesis in the ol bible it does indeed clearly define marriage, as as a union between one man and one OR MORE women sooo just lets dictate our society via a governement that looks to the bible for legeslative policy. woopie.
Also another important issue that wwdn readers should know about. In the house a bill HR 1997 is being debated TODAY that is a ‘criminal’ bill. It attempts to get tough on violence against pregnant women. Sounds rosey doesnt it? well it’s called the acts of violence against unborn childern act. The problem is it takes away little by little reproductive rights from women and makes it mandiated by the government. A government that is using a 1500 year old book to decide what to do about abortions today. So I guess we all need to be aware of the bills being passed and the true ramifications of their passing. Now I am christian and do look toward the bible for guidance and lessons but I do not look toward it to tell others what to do. That is not my perogitive. Now Bush is trying to do that. But we as a society should have the right to discuss when and how life is created and how it should be protected and NOT let a crime bill incidently DEFINE life and protect a fetus just like a man or women. If we as a society decide upon that then so be it, but where is the discussion?
Thank you.
I’ve been coming to your site since shortly after Sept. 11, and one of the many things that has kept me coming back is that you continue to stand up for what you believe no matter the consequences. I admire and respect you for that!
By the way, when we will learn that separate but equal is anything but?
Very well said. I’ve been waiting for you to speak up, and I’m very happy that you did it so eloquently. Consequences be damned. The truth is the truth, and it will prevail over bigotry…eventually.
This possible amendment is discrimination in the highest form at the highest level. In a country founded on the basis of freedom for one and all, our leaders are making decisions that ultimately undermine that goal. They make decisions that relegate an entire section of our society to second class citizens. The Constitution says “All men were created equal.” At that time, it didn’t mean all men but all white men. After more than two hundred years, we’ve made that belief encompass all men and women regardless of color, but apparently that equality only applies if you are heterosexual.
Isn’t it enough that they force us to live in fear? Now, they are trying to undermine the foundation of civil liberty our country was created for.
For the sake of Americanism, vote anti-Bush in November.
i went ahead and posted this on an lj community i run down here … you have a great many more readers, thought id pass it along: http://www.pfaw.org/go/save_our_constitution/
“We, the undersigned, strongly oppose the adoption of an amendment to the Constitution that would require discrimination against any specific group of Americans. The Federal Marriage Amendment is a betrayal of the American principles of equality and fairness. We oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment.”
Right on Wil,
“Evil is what happens when good people do nothing”
Go out and vote and get this idiot out of office.
Shout it from the roof tops. I’d love to see (at least) a 90% turnout.
“Freedom is everybody’s fight.”
Heh, when I started reading this post there were two comments. Now there’s about thirty.
This kind of homophobia crap is what has driven people out of this country for decades. Expatriates all through history have left America for places like France where people understand that some people are gay. Yet another issues where America is behind the times.
You know, it’s a good thing we have free speech here, because there’s a whole lot of stuff to talk about.
Thank you, Wil.
Good post. Your comment about the complete irrelevance of gay marriages to the success or failure of your own is perfect.
Well said Wil! I support your post 100%!!!
Jeez, the land of freedom is starting to look more and more like Iran every day.
– The European
Amen to that. And thanks for addressing this, Wil. Civil unions just don’t cut it–no federal protection.
So banning same sex marriage is a good idea because…? What, there’s too much love in the world, and we need to cut down on some of it? I’d also like to hear no more about the sanctity of sacred nature of marriage. As far as the government and courts are concerned the issue of marriage should be strictly an issue of legal contract (hello?!? seperation of church and state? Anyone?! Anyone?!) If certain religions or churchs want to ban it or refuse to recognize same sex unions, fair game, but not the US government. If you take the religious elements out of the argument against same sex marriage there is no longer any wind in that sail.
As individuals, I would love to see more people who look at this from the perspective of, “If two consenting adults make a commitment to love and support each other, how is that ever a bad thing?” We should care only about where people (again consenting adults) put their hearts and not where they stick their d—s…
Regarding my earlier comments: Intelligent commentators are welcome to visit my website. You can post publicly to the Guest Book (“personal” pages) or privately to the Submission Form (“professional” pages, see link above r
The government shouldn’t be involved in marriage in any way, shape, or form, either for hetero or homo. At most, the only thing you should have to register with the government is your joint intention to share responsibility for children (“co-parents”), and that should even be open to more than two people. There shouldn’t be “legal” gay marriage or “legal” hetero marriage, at least not in terms of the government getting involved. If you want to designate someone as your emergency contact/medical person or what not, go ahead. Doesn’t mean the government needs to issue you a piece of paper to reflect a purely social convention.
Thank you, Wil. Well said.
Thanks for that. More people need to stand up and say how wrong a Cons. amendment would be. And thanks for the Nixon thing..I’d never heard that, but boy does it sound familiar.
E
Dublin, Ireland
Bless you for this Wil. If anything it further affirms my belief that you’re one amazing guy.
Can’t wait to read the new book!
Wil,
I’ve been a fan for many years, and with this statement, you’ve just guaranteed that I will be for many years to come.
Thank you.