December 21, 2006: No more gays
New Jersey made civil unions for gay couples official today. As is the trend, gays wed not under the term “marriage” but under the term “civil unions.” Corzine, the NJ governor who will sign the bill into law, explains why this is so:
“For most people marriage has a religious connotation, and for many there is a view that that term is not consistent with the teachings of their religious belief,” the governor said. “So there is not democratic support in the broader society for that label, even though there is strong support for equal protection under the law.”
We can easily solve this problem with no more gays.
Weddings are tiresome problem for gender warriors. The US is a world leader in the field of gender bending, and it is only a matter of time before conservative politicians yield to equality. Eventually, civil unions or marriages or some new word will be allowed for all, not just for so-called straights and gays (which I want to get rid of), but every type of arrangement, such as brothers and sisters, mothers and sons, uncles and nieces and nephews, groups of 2s and 3s and 4s, etc, who for whatever reason are living together as one and need the benefits of a joint legal situation.
Until then, groups of people and types of thoughts remain marginalized. Take for example the third sex, the androgynous, who is born with both female and male body parts. Is the androgynous one of God’s children and thus allowed to marry? The answer is likely no, with unethical repressions that continue on in modern medical practice, where at birth the androgynous is surgically altered and forced from a mer into the ill fitting clothes of a him or a her. (I use androgynous pronoun “mer,” as part of English language reform–for more information visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ze_%28pronoun%29 ).
It returns to language: The terms gay, straight, and bisexual themselves are old and misleading terminologies. Human sexuality is much more complex than simple binary summations. Instead of choosing gay, straight, or bi, a better way is to define yourself by what turns you on. No more gays.
Consider the following two people. A person with a penis who is frail and intellectual is turned on by junoesque and action figure like women, men who dress like coyboys, and also only people of his own race and the Indian race. A person born with a vagina but underwent surgical transformation is often turned on by the pretty housewife and the occasional special man, typically one who is frail and intellectual. The two may one day fall in love and decide to wed. Under US law, would the couple be called a civil union or marriage?
Awash in the complexity of human condition, pining for the olden days of simple categorization, the conservative will want to bring gays back into their everyday lives. They muse fondly over the following Old Testament language: “A man who lies with a male as he lies with a woman—abomination have the two of them done, they are to be put-to-death, yes, death, their bloodguilt is upon them!” (Lev 20:13)
