Tuesday, February 14

Finder Restaurant Cheap Eats Drink Devour
 
 
Home · Articles · Features · Queer Window · Here Comes The Gay-had
August 2nd, 2006 Byron Beck | Queer Window
 

Here Comes The Gay-had

Queers are the new al-Qaeda.

6 Comments
     
Tags:
It's hard to express my feelings of hopelessness regarding the current state of gay marriage—or lack of gay marriage. And last Wednesday's decision from our northern neighbor's Supreme Court—which upholds a ban on gay marriage in the state of Washington—didn't help matters.

When I signed up, alongside my partner, to try to help overturn Oregon's own gay-marriage ban (see pretty much half of the last three years' "Queer Window" columns), I knew we'd be in for a long fight. But it feels pretty bleak right now in regard to winning this battle.

Kind of like the mess in the Middle East.

I'm not trying to equate the frustration of gays trying to get hitched with the suffering and death of soldiers and innocent civilians who are in the middle of a war they don't want and didn't ask for. I'll leave the shock-talk for political pie-holes like Ann Coulter, who called Bill Clinton a "latent homosexual" last week on Donny Deutsch's Big Idea cable chat show, because his Oval Office sex life reminds her of how gays act in a bathhouse. And I know some of you think comparing queer rights to World War III is nothing short of self-absorbed bullshit.

But here's why I make the comparison—and, yes, it has to do with our current commander in chief.

President Bush likes to say, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." Now, replace the word "terrorists" with "gays."

In the black-and-white construct of how he thinks (and how so many of the people who elected him think), gays are easily demonized, seen as less than human, which makes it that much easier to relegate us to separate-but-equal status.

In Bush's born-again, whitewashed world, queers who want to marry have no better case than members of al-Qaeda or Hezbollah have for their causes.

It's all too easy to imagine Bush leaning over to a fellow world leader, as he did with Tony Blair during the G8 Summit, and saying queers need to "stop doing this shit and it's over," like he did about Syria needing to shut down Hezbollah. (At least we can take solace that Blair could tell him to sod off, because same-sex bonds are legal in the U.K., even for old queens like Elton.)

When the issue of gay marriage first came up, I thought it was a silly idea. Now, because I've learned it scares people and makes for an easy bogeyman any time the Right needs a distraction from its debacle du jour, it's all I think of.

And because of that, I am left with only one conclusion: We have been made into the enemy. So maybe it's time we started acting like one. Truth is, queers are the only ones who will ever wake the rest of this country up from this embarrassing national homophobic nightmare.

I'm not siding with terrorists whose Allah-approved suicide missions are to bomb us back into the Dark Ages. But I'm beginning to understand the fervor that forces otherwise intelligent and educated—and desperate—people to take drastic measures.

I'm not sure it means I'm ready to launch a missile into the next Focus on the Family hootenanny, but it does mean I'm willing to fantasize about declaring a full-out "fagwa." Just imagine how cute our uniforms would look.

 
  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
 
 
 

 

 
08.01.2006 at 09:00 Reply
Here Comes The Gay-hadThis isn't about Bush and the "right". How many "blue" states voted down gay marraige?—Mike

 

08.02.2006 at 09:00 Reply
Here Comes The Gay-hadbeck, does juan still ghost write your columns?—memo

 

08.02.2006 at 09:00 Reply
Here Comes The Gay-hadOk... so if we are on a 'Gayhad,' does your 'fagwa' give license to our warriors, the 'Mugayhideen,' to attack where necessary?After Lawrence v Texas it just seemed that he marriage issue was going to come up whether it was the right time for gay peoples (and I don't think it was at all) or not. FotF, the AFA, FRC, CWA, etc... were all intent on creating the issue as a way of 1) filling their coffers with money and 2) instituting a conservative political agenda on the back of the issue. Marriage really didn't matter to them except that they knew that they could use it to play on people's fears. Massachusetts was their god-send, a devil they could exploit and will continue to milk for as long as they can.Frankly the heterosexual-need and stop overt heterosexual promiscuity (New York) ideas for why marriage could only be applied to straights is rather lame. Families are families. Some day people will get that into their heads.—Lij

 

08.06.2006 at 09:00 Reply
another perspectivePersonally, I think marriage should be an entirely non-legal event. Let churches handle marriages and have the state let ANYONE have civil unions. To me, marriage sanctioned by the state itself is a violation of the separation of church and state. Good luck with the Gay-had anyway, though.—Pastor Phil

 

08.07.2006 at 09:00 Reply
Here Comes The Gay-hadI understand the frustration. However, it's quite clear that violence is not the solution. Violence can not solve the Mid-east problem (with the exception, perhaps, of 15 strategically placed H-bombs). Realistically though, the homophobia is correcting itself. The more that gays, their friends, and families continue to advocate for equal rights alongside Bush and his religious wackos' call for hate and condemnation of gays, the majority of Americans (and the world) will come to terms with their misplaced fears. When given the larger choice of freedom, tolerance, and acceptance for ALL versus special rights for the privileged simple majority and subjugation of the minority populations, I believe that the majority of the population will choose freedom, tolerance, and acceptance of all, because nearly every person harbors a minority opinion or characteristic. —Joe

 

 
 

Web Design for magazines

Close
Close
Close