In which I delve into an outbreak of equality, rely way too much on Wikipedia in an attempt to prove a point, and promote mindless violence

Hello!

So, in case you've been living under a rock for the last week or so, Iowa and Vermont now have marriage equality (well, maybe not right this second, but quite soon)! All that, plus Washington D.C.'s city council voted to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. So, all in all, a pretty watershed moment for the LGBT movement... or at least a pretty watershed moment for one aspect of the LGBT movement.

Before we wade into the crazies who hate us so, a few thoughts.

First, if you haven't actually read a summary of the Iowa Supreme Court's unanimous decision, you should. It's a pretty remarkable piece of writing. The justices saw fit not only to overturn the ban on same-sex marriage, but also to individually debunk every single argument the "traditional marriage only" people generally proffer. All of 'em. Good for Iowa.

Vermont was interesting as well, as it was the first state to enact marriage equality through the legislature, not by court order. I'm on record as saying that I think it's a much more powerful statement for equality to happen this way... plus it completely undermines the religious right's argument of judicial activists overturning the will of the public and the like. Well, no fear... they're resilient, these people. Always ready with a new idiotic argument. (My favorite part is this quote: "It's sort of like being the first country to voluntarily go communist." It made me laugh, and for that, at least, it gets points for creative nutbaggery.)

But the most interesting thing about the Vermont situation, to me at least, is how little coverage I really saw of it. The day the legislation passed, I had CNN on. When it first happened, CNN broke the news. And then, for the next three or four hours... nothing. Almost complete silence. Certainly no talking heads screaming hysterically into the camera about the Decline of Western Civilization (sponsored by those insidious queers). And yes, I do know that there was some of that later on, over the next few days... but the frequency of it was generally much, much less (at least on the non-Fox News news stations). Even better, in some of the interviews with these sorts of people, I noticed a creeping sentiment from several anchors of "What the hell's the big deal? Let the damn queers marry already!" Worlds away from the "sky is falling" mentality of newspeople following the Massachusetts (and even California) court decision.

Before we fall down the rabbit hole of the hysterical online (and otherwise) reaction to the rulings, let me direct you to adorable nerd Nate Silver's article projecting when the citizens of every state would fail to approve a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage (ignoring the fact that many of these states already have them... this is more about public opinion). It's really fascinating stuff, and his statistical analysis shows how quickly change may come on this issue (FYI, NC would fail to approve an amendment in 2019... just one more decade of bigotry to go!). I'm not sure I agree with all his methods, but Silver is much, much smarter than me... and it's incredibly interesting... so let's just go with it for now.

***

Alright.

I think the last week has caused certain members of the religious right to completely lose their shit. How else do you explain articles like this one, which manages to somehow link mass murders and gay marriage? For serious. It does. It's even there in the title of the article, should you dare to click on it.

If you don't want to wade through the whole thing, this quote can pretty much serve as the author's thesis: "It is my intention to point out that the success of the sexual revolution is inversely proportional to the decline in morality; and it is the decline of morality (and the faith that so often under girds it) that is the underlying cause of our modern day epidemic of mass murders."

Our good friends at Wikipedia tell me that the term "sexual revolution" most often refers to a period in the 1960's and 70's, though it can sometimes include a period starting in the 1920's with Freud's writings.

So, using my fantastical powers of inference, I can deduce that the author feels that, before the 1960's (or the 1920's, if one's inclined to be generous. Which I am not), moral standards were much higher. Yes, indeedy. No immorality existed before then, and no epidemic of mass murders... especially none in the name of faith. Because people of faith are on a much higher moral ground. For sure.

***

Then there's this guy, who argues that the Iowa court decision will be more damaging to the state than the hugeass flood that occurred last year. The flood that caused an estimated $10 BILLION in damages, displaced 40,000 Iowans, and caused one fatality.

Nope, the gays marrying is much, much, much worse than that. It's almost flattering, in a perverse sort of way.

Again, an actual quote: "It is not hyperbole to say that this ruling has the potential to be the worst disaster to strike the state of Iowa. Flood waters destroy houses, ruin offices buildings and displace families. Yet, recovery happens. Houses are rebuilt. Businesses relocate. Families eventually find housing. Legalized "homosexual marriage," on the other hand, does far more pervasive and irrecoverable damage."

I wonder if I went up to an Iowan who had his or her home destroyed by the flood... or the family of the person who was killed during it... or flood victims who began showing signs of asthma and bronchitis because of the levels of formaldehyde present in FEMA trailers... if I went up to one of them and asked: "Which is worse? The natural disaster that significantly altered your way of life, perhaps forever... or the queers marrying?"... I wonder what they would say?

Jackass.

***

One more?

How about this article, which frets about Iowa becoming a "homosexual mecca." What a ridiculous statement! No one could buy into that, right?

Oh wait... this guy.

And this one (an actual legislator)!

Even Omaha.com picked up on the meme, though in a slightly less insulting way.

So will it? Will Iowa surpass San Francisco as the destination for all queers? Will thousands of deviant homosexuals descend upon the unsuspecting citizens of Iowa and amass enough political power to make "YMCA" the official state song?

Probably not. And Dan Savage sums up why, in three short words.

***

Before I go, the Onion has a video report about a hot new video game. And it's awesome. Check it out!

And even better, you can actually play it!

Cheers.