in light of my state's support of proposition 2 (the texas marriage amendment) yesterday, i thought i'd get some remarks from dr. ezekiel biblethumper, who is a local minister and an ardent supporter of the measure. he and i sat down over lunch at the olive garden, which, according to dr. biblethumper, is "simply heavenly". in between bites of his blessed pasta, he answered my questions. for the sake of brevity, i've not transcribed our pleasantries and off-topic banter.
guy in a bear suit (giabs): so tell me, dr. thumper, may i call you dr. thumper? why do you....
dr. biblethumper (db): actually it's biblethumper.
giabs: i'm sorry?
db: BIBLEthumper. you just said thumper.
giabs: my deepest apologies, dr.
db: no worries, son.
giabs: so tell me, dr. biblethumper, why is this issue so important to you?
db: well it all comes down to family. you see, if we allow homosexuals to marry, it disintegrates society. it ruins the concept of a christian, american family. one man plus one woman equals one marriage.
giabs: family yes. nothing more important than christian families. and i like that with the math thingy. very succinct.
db: right. it's what jesus would want. homosexuality, as the bible teaches us, is a sin.
giabs: interesting. so your take, and jesus' take, is that any relationship that involves sin should not be able to take part in a state recognized marriage?
db: well hold on, there. that's not exactly what i said.
giabs: sure you did. the reason gays shouldn't be married is because homosexuality is a sin and therefore sullies the concept of good christian families.
db: well that much is true, but...
giabs: well let's just take that idea to its logical conclusion; people who are sinners should not be allowed to marry. lying is a sin, so i expect 90% of marriages in america to be voided by this time next week.
db: no, that's not...what i mean is.....homosexuality is a perversion, according to the bible. it was adam and eve, not adam and steve.
giabs: that's very clever. and i see your point. it's not ALL sins that should be grounds for the no marriage law, just those that are sexual in nature.
db: umm.....
giabs: those of us that engage in oral sex will be served notice by the state right? i mean, that we can't be married? because i know that oral and anal sex are also a no-no in the good book.
db: well no, but...
giabs: and how about couples who had relations of a sexual nature prior to saying their vows? premarital sex makes baby jesus cry, no?
db: that's true, but i don't know if...
giabs: that's ok. i'm clear. moving on.
db: it's not just a sexual/sin issue here, son.
giabs: ok then. what else helps form your opinion?
db: i'm glad you asked. homosexual relationships cannot result in offspring, which should be a main objective for a christian family. we were told to go forth and multiply. clearly, biology favors heterosexual relationships, in line with god's plan.
giabs: i'm with you there, padre. those damn people with fertility problems should not be allowed to marry. fuck 'em, i say. sorry about that, dr., my mouth gets a bit foul from time to time.
db: that's ok, but i wasn't talking about them.
giabs: i'm confused. you said that in order for a marriage to be legal, it must be able to reproduce; i'm paraphrasing, of course.
db: not in every case. fertility issues are an area where...
giabs: no worries, doc. i got it. adoption is wrong.
db: well no. i mean...
giabs: got it. just for gays.
db: what it really comes down to is that homosexual marriages will threaten and ultimately ruin the sanctity of all marriage. it really is that simple.
giabs: once again, we are in agreement. marriage is a sacred institution. just the other day i was reading a tabloid magazine about britney spears and jennifer lopez getting married and divorced every five minutes and i was soooo glad that we're putting laws in place that make divorce illegal.
db: what?
giabs: yeah. you just said that things that ruin the sanctity of marriage, like loving, monogamous, homosexual partners, should be illegal. i just jumped ahead of you there since i assumed you were against divorce as well, seeing as how it cheapens marriage on the whole.
db: i am against divorce and it does cheapen marriage, but i'm not suggesting it should be illegal.
giabs: you're not?
db: no. and neither is this proposition.
giabs: ok. this is just one of those exceptions that we keep running into, right?
db: right.
giabs: it's fortunate for good christians everywhere that all of these exceptions still manage to exclude those nasty gays from getting married.
db: absolutely.
giabs: so tell me how your own marriage turned so shaky and precarious.
db: what? it is neither of those.
giabs: sure it is. if two people whom you've never met want to stand up in front of a room full of other people you've never met and proclaim that they love each other and intend to spend the rest of their lives together, and that somehow threatens the strength of your love for your wife, you must be having major problems. have you tried counseling?
db: my marriage is strong. nothing can change that
giabs: well then how do the actions of two strangers cheapen what you have?
db: they don't, per se. not on an individual basis.
giabs: but collectively, we're all individuals. if none of us are threatened, how can all of us be threatened?
db: it's not that simple. you see, marriage is like a...
giabs: nevermind. so what about the democratic idea that a minority should be protected from a majority?
db: well certainly a state or community has the right to decide what it will accept as right or wrong.
giabs: certainly. so if a state like massachusetts wants to allow gay people to marry, that's ok. or if a city like austin, texas thinks it's acceptable, you're all for it. how about if a west village neighborhood in manhattan wants only gays to be allowed to marry; no heterosexuals. that's fine right?
db: no!
giabs: but it's their own community. their own standards right?
db: not in that case.
giabs: gotcha. hey, just off topic for a second, did you see the news stories about those nfl cheerleaders having lesbian sex in the bathroom of that bar?
db: oh yes, that was so hot!
giabs: it sure was. so allow me to sum up, if i might. you're opposed to legal homosexual marriages because (1) homosexuality is a sin and sins are bad, (2) no kids can naturally result from the union, (3) the sanctity of all marriage will be threatened by it, and (4) communities have the right to legislate their own morality.
exceptions to each point include, (1) sins that are not homosexuality, since god ranks sins and being gay is right at the top, (2) straight couples with fertility problems, which we'll allow to slide, (3) other items that inflict far worse damage on marriage as an institution, such as a staggering divorce rate, and (4) communities that don't agree with christians.
db: i'd say you nailed it.
giabs: like jesus to a cross. just kidding, doc. thank you for taking the time today, dr. biblethumper. i must admit that at first your positions seemed contradictory, and quite frankly, a bit hypocritical. but after your clear and concise defense of them, i think i understand........you're a bigoted fuckface who hides behind religion, a religion that holds as two of its major tenements to "love thy neighbor" and "judge not", to actively discriminate against a group of people and has trumped up some bullshit marriage amendment to actually legislate some of that hatred. did i get it right? did i nail it? wait, come back!