It's rare that I dip back into the archives, but the Gay Marriage issue is heating up in all sorts of unfortunate ways, and I felt it was worth re-stating my firm opposition to the prevailing trend towards legitimizing this dangerous and gathering threat to our nation. 

Here is some footage of me discussing the genesis of my own personal opposition to legalized gay marriage.  It's a harrowing tale, but I think it makes a powerful statement:

^{NOTE:  Text below is NOT a transcript of this video...}

As you can tell from my evident distress, it was a genuinely disorienting experience.  But it made me realize that it's so much simpler to just accept a very basic premise-- "Marriage" is between a man and a woman.  Full stop.

Or, if those two get divorced, then it can be between that man and another woman.  Or a series of women.  Same for her, really-- I don't want to be sexist about this-- she can go on to marry a series of husbands, one after another.  I mean, it gets expensive, with lawyers and legal fees, obviously, to go through all those divorce proceedings, but this is a free country, after all, and people have the right to get divorced if things aren't working out for them.

But I don't think this detracts from my essential premise-- that "Marriage" is a sacred, sacred thing, between a man and a woman, or at least between as many men and as many women who might want to marry each other and then call it off (either through annulment or divorce proceedings) and move on to another sacred marriage with someone else, as long as they do it one at a time and not all at once.  I am NOT in favor of polygamy-- it's too confusing, and makes me nervous.  (Although I have enjoyed a handful of episodes of HBO's "Big Love", starring the rather excellent Bill Paxton. It's a quality show, from what little I've seen of it.)

The point is:  if a man wants to marry another man, or a woman wants to marry another woman, then it's confusing to people who DON'T want to do that.  It's confusing.  Because-- for instance-- what if you are a man married to a woman, and you tell someone that you are married?  Will they think, "Oh, I've heard that some men marry other MEN-- I wonder if he's married to a man??"  Now, instead of saying "I'm married' and having that be the end of it, one must say "I'm married-- to a woman!"  It's exhausting.

Or what if a man's wife was dying in the hospital?  "My wife is dying -- I have to see her, I'm her husband!"  Now imagine if the man was married to another MAN, and that man was dying.  In this instance, he would be allowed to visit his dying partner of 30 years. But wouldn't that ALSO be kind of confusing?  "You're the husband?  But the patient is a man, that would mean---  Oh!  Oh, I'm sorry.  Please.  Please, forgive me, go right in. I didn't realize you were "gay married."

See how awkward that was for the doctor?  And after he worked so hard to save the man's life, to put him through those seconds of slight social confusion, well-- that just doesn't seem right.  And it's things like that which make me inclined to prevent a great many adults from enjoying the right to marry one another.  Even if they love each other and spend their whole entire lives together.  

I should note that I have had a few people-- even conservatives, if you can believe it-- take issue with my contention that Homosexuality is as big a threat to America as International Terrorism.  I've been told that this is a "ridiculous assertion" and that drawing such a comparison hurts the Anti-Gay, Pro-Straight Agenda immeasurably.  I've been told that it makes us seem hateful and out-of-touch with the increasing tolerance of the mainstream American public.  

To these people, I can only say this:  it's time for all of us to get our priorities straight.  We regularly kick gay people out of the US military for being gay, regardless of whether they are "mission critical" (such as the dozens of desperately-needed Arabic linguists who are often crucial to keeping the rest of our troops out of harm's way.)  While some have argued that this kind of practice betrays a shockingly warped sense of what is truly important, I'd say it spells the question out in the starkest terms imaginable:  Do You Hate Homosexuality More Than You Love America?  

I know how I'd answer.  (Sorry, America.)

UPDATE:   I notice a greater degree of confusion than usual in the comments today.  Perhaps my own personal sense of confusion is highly contagious.  I would encourage any OS members who are about to post a comment to scroll down a bit and read a sampling of what people have already written before posting any remarks...