I think of myself, generally, as a conservative but, damn, the conservatives make it hard to be one.

I'll admit to more than a spec of skepticism about anyone in politics, liberal or conservative. I'm just cynical enough to think none of our "representatives" really cares a whole lot about us.

They mostly care about them. Selves. And about getting and staying elected. Which means they care about those who give them the money to get and stay elected.

Yeah, I know, it sounds a lot more like a liberal than a conservative to say that but--really--do you disagree? Do you think Bill Clinton was any less likely to screw the populous than, say, Nixon? Or Bush? Or LBJ or Kennedy?

OK, "screw" and "Clinton" in the same sentence brings up a pretty specific set of pictographs, but you follow my drift.

If politicians are motivated primarily by the desire to be re-elected, you have to filter anything they do or say through the sieve of that knowledge. You have to say, how does banning gay marriages or lowering the speed limit or fighting for or against abortion help get them more votes?" Because they're calculatingly Pavlovian.

Ring the bell, get a vote (pant, pant, wag, wag).

So what's the deal about gay marriage? My state is in the vanguard in this regard, with an amazingly blindfolded look at the realities of life. As my four children and, accumulatively, two wives can attest, I'm not gay, but I care very much for a number of gay people. I don't know if the whole issue of gay marriage is a steaming issue for them today or not, but I question why it's even a question.

There is a very vocal minority of folks out there (flaming conservatives, yes, and the bible-beaters, and ignorant rednecks) who are really offended somehow by the idea of two men having sex. That's what it really comes down to. Guys trying to imagine themselves going down on another guy and, well, not easily reconciling the picture.

A little too much chair-squirming for comfort. And the idea of having to explain sodomy to a curious pre-teen? Nope. That's hard to talk about. It's bad enough having to explain regular intercourse and the President's blow job. Gay sex is out of the question. Male gay sex, anyway.

We certainly don't care a lot about two women getting it on. Oh, I'm sure there are folks who'll whine about that but let's be honest: The fantasy of two women going at it is time-honored. Of course, sex for women is a lot, well, cleaner. A lot fewer liquids and other disagreeable substances at work.

And, again, I think it's the men who are driving this thought. Yeah, OK, those women are gay, but I can still kinda imagine joining in the party, right? But when it's a couple of guys, well, that's just wrong somehow.

I've about had it up to here about the sanctity of marriage. I mean, it's a nice idea and all but it's...well...it's mostly a load of crap is what it is. Marriage isn't sacred, or at least isn't treated like it. Naw. It's a contract. And a temporary one at that.

Look at the statistics. In 2002, my fine state had 80,373 marriages and 45,955 divorces. We, the married folk, are batting .428; good in baseball, perhaps, but not a particularly stellar record for something "sacred."

No, marriage is not sacred, it's work. Like most everything else in life. It's hard to live with somebody. Even harder when you have children thrown in the mix. Even harder than that when you have mixed families with stepchildren, ex-spouses, extended families and all the other baggage that comes with it. It's hard to keep all that pulled together. Too many conflicting objectives.

In many ways, I suspect things in this regard might actually be a bit easier for gay couples. First, in general, they don't have kids. Don't get me wrong, I love my kids but from a strictly pragmatic look they're expensive and time-consuming. And bring a whole raft of issues to the home (for your first assignment, compare and contrast the way your mother raised you and my mother raised me...).

Plus, gay couples don't have the mixed-gender issues to deal with. Yeah, I know, that's the problem, but I am shocked on a mostly daily basis just how differently men and women deal with the world. I've learned, for instance, that when my wife and I have a conversation and she says, "OK," I interpret it to mean, "yes, I'll do that," but she says it meaning, "I heard the words coming out of your head."

I've never been in a gay relationship but I have to think once you get past the idea of having sex with your best friend you have all the benefits of not dealing with the other sex.

"Wow, I'm exhausted. That was unbelieveable. Let's have a beer and watch some football, then finish putting the supercharger on the car."

"Sounds good!"

Why marriage and all of the rights associated with it have to be solely for "a man and a woman" are beyond me. Why not between two individuals who want to make a significant commitment to each other and to accept all the baggage that goes along with it. Surely, gays can't have a much lower batting percentage than the straight folks.

So, with all this bruhaha I keep going back to the original question: Why do the politicians care? And keep coming back to the same answer: To get votes.

It's not the votes of the majority they're driving for becaue the majority of Americans acknowledge and more or less support gay relationships. Some are queasier than others about the whole thing but at the end of the day most folks think they oughta be able to do more or less whatever they please.

No, like always, the politicians are courting the lunatic fringe. So much of politics is so middle of the road, and so many politicians are indistinguishable from one another that, more and more, it seems like the Democrats and Republicans go to wild efforts to polarize their positions.

Whether it's about abortion, taxes or gay rights, everybody's taking an extreme position just to get noticed. Like Madonna and Britney's kiss, it wasn't about fun, it was about publicity. It's all a big game.

I'm just sorry so many great, but gay, folks have to be pawns in it.

No documents found