Tilting at windmills
You would think that with the Senate's vote to allow same-sex couples from out of state to get married and with the House poised to do the same, the self-righteous family values crowd would just fold up tent and move their circus elsewhere.
Like, oh, I don't know, maybe Kansas?
Fat chance. Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, says the campaign to repeal gay marriage is "going to be here until the cows go home."
I have a question: Have you ever tried to move a cow? I did, 30 years ago, in a field in Greenfield with a bunch of other kids from UMass, and I'm telling you, that cow wouldn't budge.
I called Mineau yesterday and, while he seemed like a perfect gentleman, listening to his analysis of the chance of his side prevailing in this was like listening to Don Quixote talk about how he was going to take out those windmills in La Mancha or the left-wing nuts who want to impeach Bush.
But gay marriage is so yesterday anyway. It's been, like, four years, and the sun still rises, the sun still sets, and Lou Gorman still has lunch. I mean, even the Globe played the Senate story on the City & Region front.
Yawn.
I've always had an egalitarian view on this. I think it's unconstitutionally unfair that only heterosexuals are allowed to know what it feels like to get constantly nagged, be told your socks don't match, and find out your wallet has been emptied so your spouse could buy another pair of shoes that will lie unworn in a closet.
And there's nothing you can do about it in the short run because you have a contract binding you to the person who tells you to stop picking your nose. As for the sanctity of marriage, does that refer to the 50 percent that end in divorce or the 50 percent that don't?
I never understood how this became a liberal/conservative thing.
I thought gay marriage was something the religious right would try to foist on gay people. You know, so gay couples could be miserable like the rest of us.
What could be more conservative than being monogamous and raising kids, living an existence that is about as exciting as being a penguin on the Galápagos Islands?
A lot of people oppose gay marriage on religious grounds, and they are perfectly entitled to. But, as I recall, the Puritans who first settled Massachusetts were followed by generations who gradually stopped believing that God sat around thinking of ways to smite sinners. And, then, of course, there are many people who don't believe religion should be used to dictate the laws of a democratic republic.
Is this a great country or what? And because this is a great democracy, the people who still get worked up about gay marriage can work to vote out those in the Legislature who have voted at each turn to enshrine it in law.
Of course, they tried that two years ago and got their clocks cleaned. They're entitled to try again, and good luck to them. But at some point, a good fight becomes pointless. Every generation, every century, what was perceived as "normal" or "mainstream" changes, and there's no going back.
You're certainly entitled to not approve of homosexuals, but if you think they're going to go back into the closet to spare you your discomfort, you don't know human nature and you certainly don't know human history.
And if you think that once a civil right is recognized by the state's highest court you can somehow change it back to the way it was, or that you can get a popular referendum so a majority can strip a civil right from a minority, I own a bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in.
Some who oppose gay marriage are deeply principled. Others are bigots. But they share a common cause. Their cause in Massachusetts is dead.
It's over.
Get used to it.
And if you don't like homosexuals, don't marry one.
Kevin Cullen is a Globe columnist. He can be reached at cullen@globe.com. 