Tags
Conservatism, Dan Patrick, Gay Marriage, Gay Rights, Internship, Marriage, Right Wing, Texas, Twitter
How does Texas State Senator, Dan Patrick feel about a ruling by Orlando Garcia declaring a Texas ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional? He’s most upset! So upset, he has declared once and for all that marriage is between one man and another man. This would apparently rule out polygamy as well as both straight marriages and lesbian unions, which makes Patrick’s stance on marriage very unusual indeed.
…as least it would if he were serious about it.
This was of course a typo, or more like a thinko. …a brain fart? Okay, let’s call it a brain tweeto! But it was a glorious tweeto, just the same. No, I’m not talking about the simple irony of a pseudo-conservative Republican (or one of his staff members) tweeting something so unexpected. I mean to say, the mistake is actually quite revealing because Patrick’s tweeto could queer our whole sense of the politics at stake here (pun intended). All we have to do is take it seriously.
If only for a moment some folks could imagine a world in which the state of Texas (or any other such state) took it upon itself to legislate Homosexual unions, they might find themselves looking at the issue of gay marriage from a whole new perspective. The Christian right is frequently found howling in rage over the aggressive nature of the gay rights movement and (shudder) the gay agenda! What this ‘gay agenda’ means varies from one faith-filled narrative to the next, but moments like this one really do underscore the one-sidedness of the whole issue. The fact is, for all the controversial posturing on all sides, one thing we are NOT looking at here is a serious attempt to restrict marriage to gay unions. It seems imaginable only as a joke or a mistake of some kind.
But of course such a thing would be outrageous. Truly, it would! But what makes it outrageous to tell heterosexual couples they cannot get married when the Christian right constantly assures us that it is fair and reasonable to do this to those of homosexual persuasion? How is it that people who would no more accept this kind of government intrusion into their personal lives can do this without thinking twice to others?
People like Senator Patrick take for granted the power their own numbers give them. They also take for granted changes in custom that effectively polygamy from people’s from the table without requiring them to square it with their own stated principles. Most importantly, they take for granted the knowledge that government regulation of marriage will not interfere with their own lives, and especially their own divorces.
…apparently, they also take for granted the ability to blame someone else for the mistake.
.
northierthanthou 
Many, many years ago, I took a class about subversive gay literature. There was a little bit of bemoaning the possibility of the disappearance of a distinct gay subculture if gay marriage became a reality. Personally, I would hate to see the loss of that sort of culture and maybe Dan Patrick feels the same way. It would only be fair to let heterosexuals get in on the whole “sexual outlaw” stuff. Imagine, dark underground bars where men and woman could go and meet away from the judging eyes of their homosexual neighbors.
I think ‘subculture’ can be a stereotype created that has people pretend to act in ways they normally would not. It contributes to ideas that gays are weird. (waits for it) sigh
My original comment was just a joke, but I think there’s a lot of value in that subculture, and I’m not putting quotes around it either. The professor in that class as well as most of the students were gay, mostly men, and they enjoyed that particular subculture quite a lot.
What I wonder is how much of that artistic strain of thumbing one’s nose at the straights and exulting in one’s sexuality is inherently linked to homosexuality, or if due to being forced underground that strain attracts homosexuals. Now, with the every greater acceptability of the gays within straight society what will happen to that artistic impulse? Will it fade away as no longer being useful. Will it continue as a sort of museum piece? Will some parts of it continue without the association with homosexuality?
It is good that gay men who were not comfortable with that subculture and who wanted to be part of the broader society now can be, or at least we’re moving towards a world where than can be. But that doesn’t negate the value of that subculture.
Same sex marriage is coming into the headlines here in Australia recently. It’s illegal in all states except, recently, one.
But the thing that makes me really angry is when others make judgement or attempt to outlaw what people do behind the front door of their own home. It’s no one else’s business how I (or anyone else) conducts their personal relationships.
If I am heterosexual, lesbian, single, divorced, married, de facto, celibate or promiscuous (with 3-4 partners every night), why should anyone judge me by my sexual persuasion. If I was in a committed, loving relationship and could offer a child a loving, secure home, isn’t that what counts. If I live with either a man or woman for most of my adult life, isn’t that MY choice.
I don’t tell married couples how to live their lives. I don’t tell them they can’t get family health insurance for their partner because because they have a ‘traditional’ family. I don’t tell celibate people how to live their lives. It’s none of anyone’s business what couples do behind closed doors or whether they are same-sex.
We live in a multi-cultural society and democracy in Australia. Why don’t the Government & politicians mind their own bloody business and get on with the important job of running our country & caring for the environment. If they put as much energy/money/thought into sustainable living into the future, world peace and world health, as they do about criticising same-sex marriage/relationships/entitlements, the world would be a better place.
As an Australian too, I absolutely agree with what you’re saying, Vicki, it’s a pity those who bang on about sexual relations don’t get so upset about blowing people apart with drones, or about poverty, or economic inequality. You know, the REAL things that matter.
There was actually a short story by Charles Beaumont back in the 1950s that portrays life for straights in a mandatory-gay culture. Quite effective.
that would be the MOST awesome april fool’s joke ever!!! only gays can marry other unions are illegal
This is patrict as usual!
Love the post and good catch!
I teach high school and attitudes have changed dramatically in the last five years. Either the vast majority of students don’t care or only those who do say anything, but the norm now seems to be that individuals should be able to marry whomever they choose. Now I not only get to hear about boys and girls breaking up with each other but also about girls breaking up with girls–that seems more open than male dating but nevertheless, I do not see the gay guys persecuted either any more.