Why is gay marriage an important election topic? That's something that really bothers me. The people who are most against gay marriage aren't exactly in places where it would even really occur en masse. San Franciscans, Bostonians and Los Angelinos generally support gay marriage, and those are the cities where homosexual relationships are most common and most in the open. Why does South Dakota even care if there's a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage when there probably aren't enough openly gay men to even sustain a marriage in that state. Seriously, there's probably less than 100 openly gay men in the whole state. So why is this a campaign issue while education is nowhere to be found? It's simply because it's an easy issue to get behind without alienating a large election base. It's easy to rally conservative Christians when blaming problems on a hidden minority. But let's look at this objectively, what are the main reasons for banning homosexual marriage?


The sanctity of marriage is the #1 most common reason given for the banning of all gay marriage, but how pure is marriage anyway? It's not like heterosexual marriage works...half of all marriages end in divorce, and many of the ones that don't probably should. Spouses cheat on each other, and not all married couples have kids. Gayness is not something you can inherit, it's something built within your psyche and gay men raising a child will not turn that kid gay. People also seem to think that if someone is gay, they cannot control themselves around any males...if that was true for gay men, wouldn't it be the same for those of us who like women? If a gay couple cannot be trusted with an adopted teenage son, how on earth can a straight man be trusted with a teenage girl? I'll tell you why, homosexuals are not pedophiles; pedophiles are pedophiles, and they're the only ones who prey on kids...no matter if they're gay or straight.


So let me get in the shoes of a homophobic hick for a second...gay marriage actually seems like a good idea to me, it's just like ghettoizing them. If gay guys get married, they are "registered" as being gay, therefore it's easier for us to know who is gay and who is straight. If they are married, they are more likely to remain committed to their partner, so that helps keep STDs in check. They can't have kids of their own, so if gayness is somehow genetically passed along, it might be weeded out if gays aren't forced to be closeted while they live out a facade of a straight life.


Basically the issues that politicians use to get elected aren't the real issues they actually discuss in Washington, but they are the most talked about within society. Education, support for the arts, the environment and a broken legal system aren't the issues that drive voters, even though they are more important in daily life. What difference does it make to me if Seigfried and Roy exchange vows and rings? None whatsoever, but it does for them. I don't know if I'll ever get married, since I've never even been able to stay with a girlfriend for more than 3 months, but I just don't see how letting my gay friends marry their committed lover will detract from my marriage if it ever happens. Marriage should be about love and nothing else. Well, maybe tax benefits...but certainly not about excluding people simply because they were born with a same-sex attraction. Maybe it's because I grew up near San Francisco, maybe it's because everyone's favorite teacher at Nueva was a gay man (who died of AIDS), maybe it's because I lived in New Orleans, or maybe it's because I'm not a biggot, but I just don't see any reason to deny gays the right to marry just because of our own insecurities. But then again, I am probably just too open minded and liberal to live in the Christian States of America...