Gaywatch 2006!

In a desperate and pathetic attempt to divert attention from their awful poll numbers, and the definitive proof that they've stolen not one, but two Presidential elections, George Bush and the Neocon Cabal have trotted out the tried-and-true "Election Year Gay-Bashing Distract-a-thon Moment", this time in the form of a Constitutional Amendment to ban same-sex marriage. As his illegal domestic spying activities prove, Dubya regards the Constitution as toilet paper anyways, so inserting this petty nonsense should come as no surprise.

In support of this idiocy, Tina J. Benkiser, Chair of the Republican Party in Texas has written:

"We Texans ARE the people, and we will fight vigorously for our rights while defending and protecting marriage and family. Now is not the time to destroy over two thousand years of human experience for a failed sociological experiment."

And then she went on to blither about so-called "activist judges" yadda, yadda, yadda.....

Firstly, marriage as it is currently defined didn't exist 2,000 years ago. Indeed, it didn't even exist 500 years ago. Back in the day, marriage was for political expedience. Your family told you who to marry. It was not based on love. The concept of "courtly love" first came about during the Renaissance. You remember the Renaissance, right? The moment where, for the first time since the Christian religion had come to power, people began ignoring petty, man-made dogma for the sake of REALITY, science, believing their own eyes, trusting the love in their hearts, etc....

So already, if you fell in love and got married, no matter what gender we're talking about, you're threatening "traditional marriage", because that "tradition" is about power and property, not love.

Secondly, how can allowing gay marriage be a "failed experiment" if you haven't even tried it yet, Texas? Things seem to be working out just spiffy for those OTHER PEOPLE, your fellow AMERICANS in Massachussetts, which incidentally also has a lower divorce rate among it's straight populous than you do.

So tell me again what exactly you're protecting? Besides your place at the front of the bus?

During this whole idiot marriage argument, I can't help but to keep thinking about a documentary I saw recently on Showtime called "little man", about film Director Nicole Conn and her partner in their real-life battle to save their son's life, who was born prematurely. The film is not about "gay rights" or gay marriage. It's just a film about the couple's struggles to keep their infant son alive, and their family intact.

Conn and her partner literally spent over $2 million dollars in medical care before young Nicholas could even walk, and I watched that whole thing with the knowledge that, if by some accident the birth mother died, despite having devoted her entire life to caring for both their son and their daughter Gabrielle (who I might add is a JOY to behold), BOTH those kids would be taken away from their OTHER mother, Gwen, and placed in state custody, because "clearly" she's not a parent.


So not only does this couple have to jump through the trauma of trying to fight off all these mindbogglingly difficult medical challenges, but they ALSO have to pay gobs of money to lawyers to draw up hundreds of contracts, and powers of attorney just to preserve BOTH these women's rights to raise their kids.

Meanwhile, a straight couple doesn't have to endure HALF that foolishness.

I would honestly challenge ANYONE to look at Nicole's family and say, "That's not a family. That's not a marriage. A marriage is between a man and a woman."

If you can watch that movie and still say that hateful nonsense, LOOK TO YOUR OWN SOUL -- because you have none.

Now "little man" is actually replaying on Showtime 2 throughout the month. If you have a cable subscription, please check it out. If not, rent it -- but be forewarned, it is challenging and heartbreaking at times, though definitely uplifting at others. It's a definite emotional rollercoaster though. It's also one of the most rewarding films I have ever seen.

The irony that is inescapable is that Britney Spears, in her 12-second Vegas marriage, was given more rights than this family would have been under our current discriminatory laws. And Britney can drop her kid on his little noggin, and legally still be considered more of a parent than these two women who clearly suffered and sacrificed for their children's lives.

That's just outrageous.

The point blank of it is, there are 600+ rights and responsibilities afforded to straight couples AUTOMATICALLY with marriage, that are denied to gay people. Clearly, a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. If the President-Select were to succeed in his efforts to insert his petty religious prejudice into our most sacred legal document, he will have only succeeded in warping the document so that it contradicts itself - at once affording citizens religious freedom and equality under the law, while simultaneously denying both.

We shouldn't be considering an amendment to exclude gay people from marrying and starting families, we should be considering how to INCLUDE gay people in our marriage laws.

To quote Bill Maher, "Either we're all drinking from the same water fountain, or we're not." And Americans need to decide once and for all about whether they really believe in all those lofty sentiments about the Equality of Man, BEFORE we presume to run about the world spreading the message of freedom to others.