Prop. 8--That Again?!?

And so, the Gay Agenda Persons (GAPs) are now up in arms about the fact that most Californians wish to keep state-approved marriage between a man and a woman, instead of f'in' with one of the most sacred and religious institutions in all of human history. Until today, when I felt the need to defend my position for Prop. 8, which said that state-approved marriage should only be between a man and a woman, I usually thought something like, Well, it's been that way for centuries! Or, This is a common sense matter! But then again, I was raised in the rural South and as a result, I probably have a bit more common sense than most of your average Californians. As a former English teacher, however, I found it disappointing that I had not made a coherent argument, as a freedom-oriented person, regarding this whole "gay marriage" travesty, which has become some kind of litmus test for being a true "GLBT," i.e., "gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transexual." Yes, I love all the lumping together that GAPs do; it's lovely, really. And try going into a bunch of lesbians or gay men and announcing that you're for Prop. 8. You probably won't find much intelligent debate in that gathering. It seems as though if you're gay, gay-friendly, or anything but a huge homophobe, in the GAP world anyway, that you simply have to be for state-approved gay "marriage." I'm not for state-approved heterosexual marriage, and if Mr. Thinking Mama and I had it to do over again, I'd not feel the need to have the state put a stamp on our relationship. Why GAPs feel that the state must put one on theirs is beyond me. Marriage is a religious institution that was private for centuries before the government started taking it over more than a century ago. I do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, but that does not make me a homophobe, except, of course, in GAPland.

Whatever your view of Prop. 8, it should scare everyone that one judge can overturn a proposition so easily and quickly, all by his lonesome (although this judge had lots of support from the GAPs), as happened earlier this week.

And so, today, I ran across this article from the very libertarian Justin Raimondo. I really agree with what he has to say and I especially like Justin's use of the quote from Camille Paglia:

As Camille Paglia points out:

I think [gay marriage] is a flash point for antigay backlash…. That’s the problem: calling it a marriage. If you ask the working class guy on the street, ‘Do you believe in gay marriages?’ it makes him absolutely have a convulsion of revulsion. Marriage was traditionally meant for male and female. It was a bond for the raising of children, so it always had a procreative meaning too, and it has a long sacred tradition behind it. I hate any time that gay causes get mixed up with seeming to profane other people’s sacred tradition. The gay activist leadership has been totally clumsy about that. Rather than treating it in a serious way and saying ‘We respect the tradition of marriage,’ gay activism is associated with throwing balloons of blood at the steps of St. Patrick’s.

Pagilia is right. Marriage is not a civil institution but a religious-cultural tradition that the State has (so far) been forced to respect and recognize—and it is centered around procreation, which is not an issue most homosexuals have to deal with.

Sexuality is indeed a complex thing; sexual acts are just that--individual acts--and they vary for different people, often depending on time, place, and person(s). Sometimes, I don't particularly like feeling as though I need to label myself at all. I will say one thing, however: I'm certainly not a GAP.