Enough With the Gay Boogeyman Already

Pam highlights an editorial in the Alamagordo (New Mexico) Daily News that made me crack up laughing.  The paper’s assistant editor, Jeff Stevens, is irritated, and rightly so, by the introduction of a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

It seems to me Republicans spend more time thinking about gay sex than any other group of people in the known world even more so than gay people trying to find other gay people with whom to have sex.

Of course, I’m talking about our very own esteemed state representative Gloria Vaughn. In case you missed the latest, Vaughn has proposed we amend the New Mexico State Constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

…Evidently, every New Mexican makes a decent living wage. No child will go to bed tonight with an empty stomach, because they are all well fed. For that matter, no child will go to bed with an empty mind because our education system is tops in the world.

Evidently our streets are free of drugs. Every New Mexican has a job and can feed their families with a $5.15 minimum wage. Our roads are the best in the nation. Everyone in the state has access to affordable health care.

We can only assume such is the case, because Vaughn isn’t seeking to amend the Constitution to solve any of those problems. No. The most important item on her agenda is to make sure that gay people can’t marry one another in the state of New Mexico.

I can almost hear Ms. Vaughn giving this speech in a sweet, hesitant, ladylike voice:


“I just feel that it’s the right thing to do, and maybe children would grow up with both parents and know who they are, and not come up against two ladies or two gentlemen. Although I’m sure that they make wonderful parents. But, I feel, according to the Bible, it strongly suggests that’s why God created Adam and Eve.”

Others have made this observation before me, but I suggest if Ms. Vaughn is worried about going against God, she should give up that truly heinous dye job.  Meanwhile, I hope the people of New Mexico show the same common sense demonstrated by Mr. Stevens.

12 Responses to “Enough With the Gay Boogeyman Already”

  1. Katy says:

    In addition to being so sorely misguided, Ms. Vaugn communicates using a sentence structure with which I am not familiar.

  2. Del says:

    That struck me too, Katy. I also like the children “coming up against” the pairs of ladies or gentlemen.

    Now Kathy, how do you know that’s not the hair color God in His infinite wisdom gave Ms. Vaughn?

  3. Kathy says:

    “Now Kathy, how do you know that’s not the hair color God in His infinite wisdom gave Ms. Vaughn?”

    If it is, God has quite the sense of humor. Or bad taste. ;)

  4. Bottom Line says:

    Now Kathy, not to pick a fight here, but I hate the argument made by Jeff Stevens that argues against the bill by stating we have empty stomachs, low wages, bad education etc and that we shouldn’t tackle this debate until those things are fixed. By that logic, no other business would every be accomplished by our government because someone will always think wages are too low, stomachs aren’t full enough (I would argue against that one based on the number of obese people in the country) and kids aren’t smart enough. Until that day we can also stop any legislation on the environment, balanced budget, petty non-binding anti-war resolutions, etc.
    Seriously, I don’t care who marries who or what color some old prudes hair is dyed; I just hate stupid arguments supporting either side, and you highlighted two bad examples at one time.
    If either side really wanted to be effective they would stick to the actual issue and stop the smoke and mirror routine.

  5. Del says:

    I don’t really understand what the “actual issue” here is. The whole idea of government protection of anything because it is ordained by the Bible seems to fly in the face of that whole separation of church and state idea. No one is talking about forcing Southern Baptist ministers to conduct marriage ceremonies for lesbian couples.

    If the issue is state protection and encouragement of the procreative couple model for households, then they should go ahead and say so. Then we could argue whether state-sanctioned domestic partnerships (right now the most binding of such partnerships is called “marriage”) of same-sex couples would really cause a threat to the future supply of workers and soldiers for the US. If the issue is ensuring that every child has a matched male-female set of parents to rear it, then the government needs to turn its legislative efforts in another direction, because the vast majority of childbirths in this country are to straight women.

  6. Bottom Line says:

    I think we are in violent agreement Del. My question is what is the purpose of gay marriage? A church can have freedom to “marry” anyone, so it must be the governement’s acknowledgement of the union. It can’t be the mere legal motives behind it, because wills and legal documents can give people the same power as married couples, yes it may be difficult, but the right is not withheld. So that leaves government benefits and tax advantages being available to a gay couple married with the sanction of the law. I am not to read into this issue, because like I said before I really don’t care who gets married, but it looks like all gay marriages will do is ease paperwork for legal issues and give tax advantages / inheritance breaks to gay couples. Wouldn’t civil unions solve that?

  7. Kathy says:

    Jeff Stevens’ point is that there are other legislative priorities far more pressing than re-outlawing something that’s already illegal (which has been the case in, I believe, every state that has spent the time and money to place a marriage amendment on the ballot). Whether or not we think his examples are appropriate, his overall point is quite valid.

  8. Del says:

    BL and I are in agreement. Well, that crunching sound you hear must be the demons iceskating, now that hell has frozen over. :)

    I think that yes, civil unions would indeed solve the legal issues. It’s not a question of just easing paperwork—AFAIK even if you are willing to pay the lawyers and go through all the hoops you still cannot get all the legal benefits of “marriage.” There are various websites enumerating exactly which benefits, concrete and otherwise, are unavailable to all but the legally married. My position—and here we may part ways—is, as I think I’ve posted here before, that a “civil union” ought to be all the State ever gives to ANY couple. I don’t think a priest has any business signing a marriage certificate, any more than he (or she!) would sign a birth certificate.

  9. Bottom Line says:

    So Kathy, by that argument the status quo for the gay marriage issue is sufficient and nothing needs to be changed right? If that is the case, don’t the courts have better things to do than here numerous gay marriage cases? Heck last time I checked there are still plenty of pedofiles, murderers and rapists waiting for court dates. Shouldn’t we free up those judges to hear more pressing cases? And if the status quo is still good enough by his argument, does that mean marriage is still only allowed for a man and woman? His argument is weak and doesn’t address the issue or any real issue at all for that matter. People in favor of gay marriage have been using favorable court systems to try to overturn or reinterpret the law to get the desired outcome, so the people opposed to it have taken the constitutional amendment route to oppose it.
    Del – what in the world is AFAIK? Haven’t heard that one before. I don’t have a problem with a religious authority signing a marriage certificate, you still have to go to the courthouse and get if filed and processed so there is a review process.

  10. Bottom Line says:

    hear vs. here, sorry.

  11. Jennifer B says:

    Gosh, my gay uncle in New Mexico is raising a child with his partner. Alexander seems perfectly content to have two daddies. I think two daddies is more preferable than life in the Ukranian orphanage from which they adopted him.

  12. Bottom Line says:

    So adoption is better than life in an orphanage, which in turn is better than being aborted and never given a shot at life. Sorry, Kathy, didn’t mean to take a pot shot at another issue here. I have been on a kick lately to point out the hypocrisy between the points being made when debating issues (both liberals and conservatives are guilty, I am not just picking on you liberals here). Really frustrating to see everyone spining and making peripheal issues the issue rather than taking on the actual issue. Smoke and mirrors.

Leave a Reply