Same-sex marriage
So there was this talk on same-sex marriage recently. I wasn’t actually there, but dear wife was, so I got a full report. It was odd in several ways. The speaker was nominally pro-same sex marriage, and indeed was in one. She started with the standard disclaimer that, despite vile attempts by the right to so characterize it, same-sex marriage was not in any sense about altering or destroying traditional marriage. And then she went on to discuss the evil patriarchal nature of traditional marriage, and why and how it ought to be utterly destroyed. So much for internal consistency. And wonderful direct evidence of the secret agenda of the same-sex marriage crowd, should anyone on the right require more. It’s not the first time I’ve heard this argument from political gays, actually. I usually associate it with an older generation, and the political right, groups like the Log Cabin Republicans: we don’t need marriage, let the breeders keep it, it’s everything we’re rejecting, trying to get away from. It’s an argument that makes sense: against marriage, though, not for it.
And yet. If she was so against marriage, why was she in one? Indeed, why had she gone to great trouble and expense to get one? Marriage, is, after all, voluntary (at least these days). Her words (marriage is bad) are discordant with her actions (I like my marriage). Actions speak louder than words, I guess, but I think the dissonance is real. Breathing bundles of contradiction, all of us.