Scott Crass of Politics Fodder Weighs In On Gay Marriage

A Fodder colleague of mine recently sent me an email saying that he was going to write a piece on gay marriage. If you haven’t already stumbled on Politics Fodder, you would find some great analysis on political campaigns and some wonderful and humorous references to human nature in politics. But, this week, Scott took a slight turn and offered his thoughts on the issue of gay marriage as it is playing out in the political landscape this year.
Below, please find a brief excerpt. I encourage you to take a quick look and hear what one straight male from the midwest has to stay about all of the hulabaloo.

What Year Is It Mr. Wolf? 1964? Gay Marriage Opponents Make It Seem So

“A would-be illegal alien trying to cross the border suddenly became in need of a psychological evaluation. Doctors called it a borderline case.” — “Goldie,” the World War II veteran/comedian
By Scott Crass
When I began doing “Politics Fodder,” I promised to provide you unbiased commentary, describing the way I see things not from the standpoint of Democrats or Republicans, but from my very own. My reasoning was that the best way to attain credibility and to not come across as a partisan hack was to speak generally, and leave personal views out of it. But non-bias also means providing honest interpretation about the environment existing environment, and if ithat means opining that one side is posing airheaded arguments from a bygone century, it only behooves me to point it out.
Now I’m not carrying the water for any organization or political party. But if anyone calls me bias and assumes that I am, I can live with it. What I will not live with — at least without giving them hell, is sitting silently by while thousands of Americans are being denied basic rights, or at least liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
In this case, I am talking about the whole issue of prohibiting same-sex marriages. During a recent debate in the House of Representatives, I believe it was a tax bill, Ohio Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones posed the question, “What time is it Mr. Wolf?” She was expressing disbelief that she was actually being asked to buy what was being sold by proponents of the bill. Now, as the debate on the Constitutional amendment to prohibit same sex-marriages is being thrust upon the American people once again, I am almost tempted to modify that question by asking, “What year is it Mr. Wolf?” Because the mindset and the rhetoric that has governed this debate make it seem as though it is 1964. On second thought, it seems like pre-civilization.
First up, as a straight male, I have always prided myself on tolerance, and it goes both ways. I don’t want to cast aspersions on the motivations of everybody who opposes gay marriage. I’m not calling anyone bigots or bad people, and I can even understand how those of past generations – particularly the elderly who undeniably grew up in a different environment, have yet to become accustomed to the concept of it. I also don’t quarrel with those who call marriage sacred, and the argument that choosing whom one wants to spend the rest of their lives with is the most important decision that can be made throughout life. Which is why I really can’t fathom what legal or moral basis there is for denying human beings of the same sex that same right.
To that end, I don’t know what aspect is more surreal; the proponents mindset, their arguments for creating reason, or quite simply, the fact that this issue could and has actually taken precedence over matters that actually do affect people’s lives, such as foreign affairs or health care.
The most neanderthal aspect of this is the focal point of the debate. Many are saying that gay marriage undermines traditional values, and that allowing people of the same gender to exchange vows is somehow a “threat” to the many prosperous heterosexual marriages. My favorite was a comment by Texas Republican Congressman John Carter, who before coming to Congress was a Judge, and he spoke of presiding over 20,000 divorce cases (he was ultimately forced to admit to Barney Frank that only six of those divorces were ended because of a gay issue). Carter called this a threat to the stability of heterosexual marriage. I don’t know how this could be argued with a straight face.
You couldn’t put a gun to my head and make me think that allowing couples of the same gender to wed is a threat to any marriage, of any kind. I will even argue that making it legal could actually strengthen a heterosexual marriage because whereas now, one could only choose to exchange vows and spend their lives with anyone in the world of the opposite sex, legalizing gay marriage would allow that person to choose a spouse from within double the population. In other words, in a world of gay marriage, one spouse should be all the more flattered because the other opted to spend his entire life with that person. It’s almost like, “of all the people in the world, male and female!!!””
If that sounds harsh, i’m sorry, but they brought it up. But I am trying to make the point that the contention that gay marriage is somehow a threat to society and a threat to any other marriage is complete and utter nonsense.
Read the rest of the article
Thanks for sharing your support with us, Scott! Our straight allies make the difference in this civil rights struggle!