The love that dares not neigh its name

"What's next?" Braves pitcher John Smoltz said, when asked his opinion about gay marriage. "Marrying an animal?"

It's fascinating how often that happens. Time and time again, when opponents of gay marriage and gay unions are asked to explain their position, their real underlying concern turns out to be a rather odd fear of bestiality.

That same obsession seems to have afflicted Timothy Dailey, a stern opponent of gay marriage and a senior fellow at the Family Research Council, a national conservative group. In an FRC brochure titled "The Slippery Slope of Same-Sex Marriage," Dailey brings up an obscure case that came to light five years ago about a deluded soul in Missouri named Mark. It seems that Mark fell in love with his pony, named Pixel, and in 1993 actually "married" her in a private ceremony.

"She's gorgeous. She's sweet. She's loving," Mark was quoted as saying in unbridled affection. "I'm very proud of her ... . Deep down, way down, I'd love to have children with her."

For Dailey, this was a call to arms. Like Smoltz, he worries that if gay marriage or gay unions are allowed, there would also be nothing in the law to stop couples such as Mark and Pixel from also getting hitched.

"Once marriage is no longer confined to a man and a woman," Dailey warned, "it is impossible to exclude virtually any relationship between two or more partners of either sex -- even nonhuman 'partners.' "

Imagine, if you will, the possible implications of such a thing. For example, it could mean that animals who enter this country illegally might be able to marry U.S. citizens and then demand the right to vote, for goodness' sake.

To avert such calamities, Dailey and others are pushing for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, thus removing any possibility that individual states could decide for themselves to sanction bestiality or gay unions. The proposed amendment is scheduled to be debated and voted on this week in the U.S. Senate, and it's expected to be a bitter and divisive fight.

So I have a proposal: If the real, underlying issue in this debate is the fear that human beings will someday be allowed to marry animals -- if Smoltz, Dailey and others are honestly and truly worried by that prospect -- then let's address that issue head on. Let's pass a Federal Animals, Relationships and Marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution that outlaws all interspecies marriages, period.

The FARM act would have two other important advantages over the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment. First, this is a deeply divided nation, and the last thing we need is something to get us even angrier at one another.

What we need instead is something that will unite us, a cause that all of us can rally behind. And surely all Americans -- with the notable exception of one very lonely guy out in Missouri -- can get behind the FARM act and thus protect human-to-human marriage from this dire threat.

By championing the FARM act, President Bush could finally make good on his promise to be a uniter, not a divider. And John Kerry could use the amendment to demonstrate yet again that there are some issues too important to compromise on. As far as I know, he is now and has always been opposed to human-animal sex, even during the '60s.

I recived an email from my big brother last night. He is on the mailing list for moooooveon and he forwarded it to everyone on his email list. The email stated that "we need to stop this amendment" My brother (whom I always thought was more intellegent than this) added his 2 cents, stating that he cannot "for the life of me" understand why this is such an issue when the war in Iraq, and the economy are more important.... my reply...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I love you, but I'm sorry, I do not agree with you here. Marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN, the whole thing comes down to anatomy, and the definition of marriage as it states in the dictionary, and what marriage has been for all of civilization. A dog is a dog, a boat is a boat, and a book is a book. Should we change the definition of any of these because a small minority wants something that isn't real? Before you go off on me here, do you remember my friend *? As gay as a 3 dollar bill, one of my best friends, and I loved him and I was heartbroken when he died. I would give him the same argument. I dont buy the crap with this being compared to black rights or the right for women to vote. Gays CHOOSE to be gay, and I have known quite a few gays and lesbians who all say this. Blacks do not CHOOSE their skin color, nor do women CHOOSE the fact they dont have a penis.

I am grateful that both senators from my state are voting for this amendment, one of who is Zell Miller, a democrat, so this proves that this in not a "vast right wing conspiracy" theory. I am happy that they are voting with the majority of this country, which all polls show more than 50% of this country dont want gay marriage.

Please, *, I love you, but dont ever sent me anything else from moveon.org. I think it is a communist, fascist site, and I am disappointed that you believe the garbage that they spew. They still have the Bush/Hiter ad running? Did our parents not teach us respect for the office of the president? I learned that lesson, I am surprised that you didn't. No, I have not turned into a "nazi-warmonger" as I am sure I am called on sites like moveon and the democratic underground. I have always considered myself an independent voter, never ever have I voted straight down a party line, but who I felt best was able to do the task at hand.

I will never vote for Kerry. I feel, as Zell Miller does, so disappointed with the democratic party, that there is no way I will leave my security, or the security of my children to someone as indecisive as John Kerry. He is a man who when he comes home from Vietnam throws his medals (or were they someone else's?) over a fence, testifies to atrocities committed, and is now running on the fact that he was a war hero. He isn't even legally able to hold office according to the constitution. Joe Leiberman was the best choice for the party. Do you support Hillary Clinton when she said recently that the tax breaks were nice, but we are going to "take it away from you for the common good"? Yes, we live in America, not communist Russia, and taxing the "rich" to support people too lazy to get out and work is absolutely ridiculous, and I cannot believe that you would agree with this!

If the republicans are dividing this great nation of ours, why is a democrat speaking at the republican convention? I see that as unity, not division. Oh yes, the democrats have Ron Reagan speaking, but just on the stem cell issue, he has never been a republican, so it cant be stated that he is the "republican" at the democratic convention.

I am truly surprised that you are a member of moveon, and I must say, I am disappointed by this. I thought you were more intelligent then that.

I love you
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I havent heard back from him yet, truth hurts I guess....

I was thinking about the comparison of gay rights to civil rights for blacks, and here is what I came up with:

The question of whether gays choose to be gay or not is beside the point. A person doesn't CHOOSE to be a schizophrenic, but that doesn't make it any less a disorder. Likewise, even if someone doesn't CHOOSE homosexual tendencies, it doesn't mean it is therefore healthy and normal.

No, the reason the black civil rights analogy doesn't wash is because blacks were standing up and demanding rights to which they were already entitled but were being denied. We didn't have to rewrite "All men are created equal." We simply had to demand that Americans extend those rights to ALL MEN. There was no new right or new idenity created. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said:

"In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
"It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check which has come back marked 'insufficient funds.' But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check -- a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.
From "I have a dream", August 28, 1963

American blacks came for what was already rightfully theirs. Clearly, homosexuals are demanding a new right, a new social contract, a new promissory note, one not in the Constitution, but foisted on America by the courts. That is why the analogy breaks down. Not because of what choice one has in their homosexual tendencies. But because no one ever promised homosexuals the right to be married. It's really that simple. At least, to this hetero white male.

Let me leave you with my own joke about gay marriage, which has a lot of truth in it:

I support equal marriage rights for ALL people, including homosexual people. I believe that no matter if you are a straight man or a homosexual man, you have the right to marry a woman. And if you are straight or homosexual woman, you have the right to marry a man. Someone explain to me how that's not equality under the law?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.