You want irony? Here’s a double dose!

The President spoke today in support of an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. It is advertised as an amendment in support of the sacred institution of marriage, but that is hogwash. It is, as Senator Ted Kennedy noted, “bigotry, pure and simple.”

It is totally incomprehensible to me how homosexuals getting married does anything at all to threaten marriage. I just don’t get it. The argument can more easily be made that encouraging gays to come out of the closet by treating them with respect in a spirit of equality strengthens marriage in at least two ways.

First, the habit of treating people with respect in a spirit of equality, if extended to hetero-sexual relationships, can only have a salutary effect on marriages.

Second, many marriages are tragic charades because husbands and/or wives are secretly gay. Giving these people legitimate outlets to express their true selves can only save people from becoming emotionally entangled with people engaging in this impossible deception.

It is important to realize that the proposed constitutional amendment not only outlaws gay marriage, it also outlaws civil unions. This aspect of the proposed amendment is not widely reported, and the reason is obvious. Not very many people give a damn about an arrangement that would allow one person, with the consent of another, to visit him or her in the ICU, or make decisions affecting end-of-life, and the like.

You may ask, “Why does anyone give a damn?” I suppose that insurance companies stand to have their actuarial tables up-ended if benefits are more widely available, but I am just supposing. It has always struck me as strange that a country where the majority of voters are women can’t pass an Equal Rights Amendment, leading me to the conclusion that someone with a lot of money at stake was manipulating the process. Maybe something similar is happening here.

Then there is the case to be made that right wing fundamentalists care about this more than anything else, and therefore, pandering to them is a means of activating Bush’s base supporters. “Base” in this context means “without moral principles, ignoble” rather than “core.”

I think this strategy has been exposed, and is losing its effectiveness, especially since today there are revelations that Bush’s close friend says, “He doesn’t give a shit about gay marriage.”

Interestingly, another source reports that Bush himself is gay or bisexual -- defined as having engaged in homosexual/bisexual adulterous behaviors with Victor Ashe, former mayor or Knoxville, Tennessee, who is now the ambassador to Poland. Leola McConnell, Liberal Democrat candidate for Governor of Nevada, claims to be an eyewitness to Dubya’s debauchery, and the woman described as a “41 year old woman currently residing in Las Vegas” in the above description of Bush’s walks on the wild side.

You may say that this is rich in irony. In the immortal words of Ron Popeill, “But wait! There’s more!”

Bush and Tony Snow have explained why this amendment is necessary. It is because, notwithstanding the will of the electorate, activist judges have declared civil unions to be a necessary concomitant with equal protection. “Marriage is the most fundamental institution of civilization, and it should not be redefined by activist judges,” King George said.

Ah, the old activist judges canard! It was activist judges that struck down laws forbidding inter-racial marriages in the appropriately named case of Loving vs. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967).

Doesn’t anybody remember? It was activist judges that overturned the will of the majority of Americans and installed that buffoon in the office of President of the United States!

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”