Mandatory Same-Sex Marriage
by Richard Oxman

February 26, 2004

Send this page to a friend! (click here)



Gavin Newsom, San Francisco's sweetheart of a mayor, did a fine job on Ted Koppel's show the other night.  The congresswoman from Colorado who was trying to trip him up with suggestions that same-sex marriage would open the door to proselytizing for polygamy was perfectly put in her place.  He called her on the "red herring," making several other three-pointers from about half-court in Teddy's gym.  And he did it all with winning ear-to-ear smiles, providing (political) over-the-shoulder saves a la Willie Mays at the Polo Grounds. Or, rather, the Jordanesque equivalent. 

He's been scoring other points as well across the nation of late, and everyone should consider getting on their knees in thankfulness for his fulsome contributions to this country.  What with the ample coverage of the gay weddings along Van Ness and Goodlett Place recently, it seems as if it's been a slam dunk daily on his part. 

Enter President Bush with his proposal for a Constitutional Amendment to prevent such gay unions.  To counter his attempt to steal the scene for political purposes, and with the letter and spirit of Carl Reiner's play of a few years back in mind, why don't we all "Enter Laughing" as we applaud the laudable in this Land of Love By the Gay Bay?   This is not the Sin of Sodom sauce which Fox fundamentalists are serving up.  Rather, Gavin's gambit is the apogee of sanity.

In terms of planetary human reproduction, passage of an amendment would be the equivalent of granting SUV owners an unprecedented tax break coupled with parking permitted in handicapped zones on all the nation's hospital grounds.  This is all not just a matter of justice or constitutionality.

Of course, the seemingly repressed, compulsive congresswoman was only desperately throwing out lines with her fishing gear, and there's no issue concerning the opening of the Mormonic floodgates.  But since she brought the subject up, let me note that one of the many huge, important differences between polygamous marriages and (straight-up, so to speak) gay marriages -- involving only two adults -- is that the former is much more likely to further overpopulate the planet. 

A little comic relief:  Gavin Newsom walks into a gay bar, and the bartender says "What'll it be?"  "Rob Roy for me," says Gavin.  "Yeh, but what do you want to drink?"  Okay.  Same setting.  Same lines except for the last one, which can be changed to "Straight up?". 

I got a million of 'em, as Jimmy used to say.  But the serious edge to this is that the extra millions that are entering onto the world stage -- again, daily -- are not comin' on cue with peals of laughter.  This planetary dilemma is the furthest thing from a comedy since Tragedy was invented. And if we don't do something "yesterday" to slow, and then terminate, the constantly increasing, cancerous body count, all Great Neptune's Waters will not wash this blood clean from our hands or genitals.  Apologies to The Bard there (who lived at a time when the number of people on earth was manageable); not even a corner for standing room at The Globe today.

In all seriousness, this society should consider leading the way for a reduction in overall population worldwide, and Gay Marriage is not a bad place to start.  'Member when China put the "one child per family" policy on the boards?  Well, we're pretty much at the point where Mandatory Same-Sex couplings might be the appropriate order of the day.  I can certainly name ten orphans from the top of my head who would be absolutely overjoyed at the pro-choice change, none of them born full-blown from the head of Zeus. 

I simply can't refrain from trying to tickle the funny bones here.  Perhaps it has to do with the dynamic of smiling when your heart is breaking, the proverbial laughing through the tears. 

To quote Ward Churchill, the "principle of population restraint is the single most important example Native American America can set for the rest of humanity.  It is the thing that is most crucial for others to emulate."  We can only replenish a tiny bit what is consumed, and that at only a certain rate.  But in spite of that fact, one of our main foci is the falling rate of consumption...amidst out-of-control proliferation. 

It's the fornicating fundamentalists, silly boys and girls.

Perhaps instead of sticking to that tired old Vatican-bred notion that we should go forth, be fruitful and multiply, we should let the Spirit of San Francisco take hold and cherish the sweet fruit that's on the vine.  We don't have to make such marriages mandatory, but we can certainly drink from the Cup of Sanity.

Richard Oxman is an Indigenist who hopes that readers will, as a supplement to the above, review "Part IV: An Alternative" in Ward Churchill's Struggle for the Land: Native North American Resistance to Genocide, Ecocide and Colonization.  He can be reached at mail@onedancesummit.org

Other Articles by Richard Oxman

* What To Do? Violence Reconsidered
The Clint Stones: Oscar Honors Violence Part I with Sylvie Oxman
* God's Grandeur
* The Party’s Over Party
Leavitt and The Utahnization of America

* Michael Moore Apologists Are Not What We Need






FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com