It seems that Dick Cheney, whose daughter is a lesbian, has finally come out and said that he supports gay marriage, but on the state level rather than the federal level since marriage has historically been regulated on the state level in the US. And I have to say that I think it’s pretty cool that he can take that stand and let other conservatives see it.

At the same time, it really would have been great if he could have done it while he was telling President Bush what to do serving as vice president and supporting former President Bush’s policies. I do understand that politics is all about compromise and giving a little so you can get a little. And I also think that he could have come forward in support of the many queer folks who want to get married while he was still in office.

We’ll see where this goes, I suppose. And in the meantime, doesn’t he look hunky in that very photoshopped image?

Does it seem to you that the anti-gay marriage folks are getting a little desperate to come up with a logical, reasonable explanation for why they don’t want gays to marry (besides their homophobia, I mean)? You’ll love this one, then.

GOP Chairman Michael Steele has proposed that if gays are allowed to marry, that will hurt businesses by adding to their health benefits costs. Here’s what he said:

“Now all of a sudden I’ve got someone who wasn’t a spouse before, that I had no responsibility for, who is now getting claimed as a spouse that I now have financial responsibility for,” Steele told Republicans at the state convention in traditionally conservative Georgia. “So how do I pay for that? Who pays for that? You just cost me money.”

If that’s the case, then maybe we shouldn’t let anyone marry. Wouldn’t that make sense? I mean, then nobody would have to pay any spousal benefits to anyone. Or we could, you know, have a health care system that wasn’t profit-driven in the first place.

In any case, it really seems like he’s trying to defend the indefensible. Which is, I hope, a sign that this sort of institutionalized homphobia is on the run. Keep your fingers crossed…

Related at Good Vibrations:

Bachelorette Gifts (fun for all marriages)
Erotic Honeymoon Sampler Kit
Mini-Peni Cake Candles
Party Tiara W/ Veil

Yet the joy for many of us is tempered by the passing of Proposition 8. The country has come so far in electing an African-American president and at the same time the blue state of California has voted to ban gay marriage. One prejudice was torn asunder while another erected a rampart.

It’s been that kind of election cycle. Our African-American president got here by telling us we should not vote for the woman candidate.

Meanwhile, the Republicans did nominate a woman to be vice-president. But her reliance on her charm, good looks and cutesy attitude rather than her intellect made her a giant step backwards for feminism.

Then there is the possibility that the reason prop 8 passed was because the African-American candidate brought too many African-Americans to the polls. The theory is that Black Churches were preaching against the abomination of gay marriage.

Of course Barack Obama never said he was in favor of gay marriage, either. It’s like our fiancé is so sweet to us when we’re alone but is a different person when his friends are around. If Obama had come out in favor of same-sex marriage he probably never would have gotten elected. Politics is a funny game that way.

In the spirit of that game I have a proposal, a new proposition to go up in a special referendum: Proposition 8 ½.

Proposition 8 ½ states that marriage shall be defined as the union of two people who love each other. Said unions shall be recognized by the State regardless of all manner of craziness and lunacy that may ensue.

Proposition 8 ½ has been carefully worded to encompass as much of the human comedy as possible. Rather than target the institution of marriage and ask specifically that same-sex couples be allowed in I am proposing we swing the doors wide. With some of the relationships that pass as marriages already this broader approach is n everyone’s interest.

Let us look at what this proposition means.

“Two people who love each other.” That seems pretty straight forward, or gay forward, which is just like straight forward only better dressed and it leans slightly to the left.

It is the second sentence that needs a little unpacking. “Said unions shall be recognized by the State regardless of all manner of craziness and lunacy that may ensue.” What does this mean?

Put most simply, marriage already encompasses a wide swath of relationships, many of them crazy and lunatic. By stating that the State must recognize all manner of craziness we are throwing the doors wide open for gay relationships. When you look at marriage today two men or two women being married just isn’t that odd.

Let’s look at some relationships that already exist and qualify as marriage.

You can live in separate houses, you can live in separate states, and so long as you are straight be considered married under the law.

You can claim to be staying late at work while carrying on an affair that your spouse knows about but doesn’t want to admit and so she punishes you with cutting remarks in front of friends, your marriage bed a cold, desolate wilderness, and, so long as you are straight, still be considered married under the law.

You can be polyamorous sex gods, at least in your own minds, sleeping with every living, breathing soul within 25 miles of San Francisco and so long as you’re straight still be considered married under the law.

You could have gotten married because you thought it was the right time, you know, because you were tired of going out every Saturday night looking, and because all your friends were getting married and you wanted someone to go with to their weddings, and now you realize you don’t really know who he is but as you’re starting to learn you realize you don’t like him and so lately every time he comes through the front door you are seized by a desire to punch him in the face. That could be your situation, and so long as you’re straight you are considered married under the law.

You can be in it for the money and so long as you are straight be considered married under the law.

You can lie to your spouse about everything except your name and so long as you’re straight…

But you can be in a committed relationship for 10 years, own property together, raise children, love one another in the face of strong societal resistance, and if you are the same sex not be considered married under the law.

Unless of course that law is Proposition 8 ½. Then the State has to recognize all manner of craziness and lunacy.

Proposition 8 ½ holds a mirror up to straight people and their marriages. Let’s not let the churches promulgate the myth that marriage between a man and a woman is considered holy simply by being. Let’s not let them control the image.

Let’s put it into law, marriage is all kinds of crazy.

You can hate your husband and still be married. You can love watching your wife have sex with large Turkish men and still be married. You can also be two men or two women and still be married. If you’re in love, that’s enough for us.

There is a flip side to Proposition 8 ½. By defining marriage as something that exists between two people who love each other we would be effectively annulling, well, more marriages than I care to name here.

(To all my friends who think I might mean you, I don’t mean you. I mean our other friends who we’re always talking about. You know who I mean.)

There you have it, Proposition 8 ½, subversive and loony but perhaps just what we need.

Proposition 8 ½: If you’re in love, that’s enough for us.

What can I say, it’s a good bumpersticker.

Anyway, it seems to me that the folks who pushed for prop 8 were doing their best to instill a moral panic. Moral panics occur when a large group of people see a group, event or condition as a threat to the social order. They are sometimes based on a certain amount of truth, while at other times, they can be entirely imaginary. But because they tap into a fear response, they can be quite tenacious and some of them linger for years or reemerge every now and then.

The more I read about the actions of the people behind prop 8, the more it looks to me as if some of them really were in a panic. And I think that it’s important to acknowledge that quite a few people really do feel fear when they think about same-sex marriage. The fact that their fears aren’t based on a realistic assessment of the facts is irrelevant in many ways. That’s how fear works.

Unfortunately, fear is contagious. Not only because one person’s fear has a tendency to spread, but also because we often seek validation for our anxiety by trying to get other people to feel it as well. After all, if I’m freaked out and you’re not, I need to find some way to reconcile that. If I can’t calm myself down, I may try to get you worked up.

I suspect that part of the strategy that we saw behind prop 8 was that some very scared people were trying to get other people to feel scared. And fear is really hard to counter because once we fall into a panic, we usually ignore any information that contradicts it.

Yes, some people just wanted the vote to go the way that they wanted and were willing to lie to do it. My guess is that a small number of people were able to manipulate the fears of a larger group, who then spread that fear to even more people.

I’m still angry about it. I think that we each have a responsibility to manage our fears and try to not let them control us. So I’m not absolving anyone of any of that. And of course, if people were more able to take care of their own stuff, we’d be less easily manipulated by the relatively small number of individuals who are willing to use our fears to control us. Isn’t there a word for people who do that?

At the same time, I think it’s worth acknowledging that perhaps there’s more to the story than we may see at first glance. Unless we recognize the complexity of the situation, we reduce people to one-dimensional figures of our imagination, which is exactly the problem in the first place.