R. D. Kushner
August 1, 2003

With nearly half of all marriages ending in divorce, it's pleasure to see that the Catholic Church recently issued a doctrine about the sanctity of this holy institution. The text below is taken directly from this document, and illuminates very clearly the pretext with which the Catholic Church would impose its will on the world to save the human race:

The Church's teaching on marriage and on the complementarity of the sexes reiterates a truth that is evident to right reason and recognized as such by all the major cultures of the world. Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose. No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman, who by mutual personal gift, proper and exclusive to themselves, tend toward the communion of their persons. In this way, they mutually perfect each other, in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives. [1]

Of course we've seen this rhetoric before from the those purporting to support the Catholic Church; in the name of Christianity, there have been other attempts to save the world. There was the attempt to save the world by killing the Muslims [The First Crusade, 1096]. There was the attempt to save the world by killing the Jews [The Spanish Inquisition, 1478].  There was the attempt to save the world by killing the Protestants [the Protestant Reformation, 16th Century]. The list goes on. The point is, that the persistent claim of being on the right side of religion and history, compounded with the persistent desire to "save" those who are "wrong" about their views, results in nothing short of savage bloodletting and what would currently be referred to as "ethnic cleansing."

A close-minded, intolerant view of the world is a fanaticism not any less destructive than that which drove Al Qaeda to crash two jet planes into the World Trade Center towers. This kind of myopic view of the world, of which the limiting view of what marriage should or shouldn't be is just one example, is a cancer. The Catholic Church doesn't think so though. They don't think it's their fault, or the fault of other similar close-minded institutions. They want to blame homosexuals. Blame the gays.

Lifestyles and the underlying presuppositions these express not only externally shape the life of society, but also tend to modify the younger generation's perception and evaluation of forms of behavior. Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage. [2]

Not even in a remote analogous sense do homosexual unions fulfill the purpose for which marriage and family deserve specific categorical recognition. On the contrary, there are good reasons for holding that such unions are harmful to the proper development of human society, especially if their impact on society were to increase. [3]

The hypocrisy of such a statement - in a world where "the proper development of human society" has resulted in religious intolerance, war, terrorism, and political, social, and economic corruption - is astounding. Liberia is under attack, United States soldiers in Iraq are being killed on a daily basis, and North Korea is conspiring to build a nuclear bomb. The reason for this upheaval in the world? Well, according to the Catholic Church, it must be those gays! Gays in Liberia. Gays in Iraq. Gays in Korea. Gays! Gays! Gays!

Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition. Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race. [4]

So, if I understand this correctly [and remember I'm an artist, not a theologian]: if the act of bumping uglies can't result in pregnancy, then no "marriage" should exist. And since the horizontal mambo-jambo can only be done in the context of marriage [everyone knows that] then gay marriages cannot be acknowledged because when two guys play hide the salami there is no chance of them contributing to the survival of the human race through the conception of a child.

Well, the Catholic Church is right about a couple of things:

1.   The survival of the human race is, quite literally, dependant on heterosexual intercourse as a means to propagate the species. [5]

2.      Anal sex between two men cannot result in conception. [6]

But to say that gay marriage cannot possibly be enriching to the diversity, complexity, and beauty of the human race is to put fear, bigotry, and hatred ahead of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Sadly, The George W. Bush is in lockstep agreement with this anti-American stance. But in order to understand what the president actually said [not what his advisors or the media said he said] it's important to look at exactly the words he used when interviewed on this issue. This will take some time, so please take a deep breath. This quote was taken from one of Mr. Bush's rare unscripted speeches, and it offers a rare glimpse into the mind of the president. The quote is shown in bold italic, and the author's comment are in [parentheses]. We are about to enter into a semiotic word of vulgar cliché, slang metaphor, and fuzzy English:

Yeah. I am mindful that we're all sinners. [Here, Mr. Bush seems to be indicating that the concepts of original sin and virgin birth - a cornerstone of his Christian heritage - are applicable to all people, everywhere, regardless of their religions or cultural customs] And I caution those who may try to take a speck out of their neighbor's eye when they've got a log in their own. [This statement comes dangerously close to mocking gibberish. Because he is about to launch an attack on gay marriage, the president is starting by letting us to know that he is not perfect himself. The "log" in his own eye is of course his intolerance, his bigotry, and his hatred - among other things. He would like us all to commend him on this bit of self-indulgent self-reflection; however, simply acknowledging this "log" in his own eye, is not a justification for his criticism of gay marriage. It simply stands alone as a mocking justification for his discriminatory views.] I think it's very important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts, to be a welcoming country. [This is a "tolerance" cliché which will be completely debunked in the next sentence.] On the other hand, that does not mean that somebody like me needs to compromise on an issue such as marriage. [Here is where the logic becomes transparent. This is the hinge on which the absurdity of his statement swings. Mr. Bush shares the Catholic Church's belief that they are right about marriage and everyone else is wrong. Although no gay person wants Mr. Bush to compromise his idea of marriage and the way he chooses to conduct his married life, Mr. Bush and the Catholic Church feel they are entitled to project their ideas of marriage on everyone else.] That's really where the issue is headed here in Washington. [He will now take his narrow and intolerant religious definition of marriage to the political capital of the United States so that he can enact legislation to command people to agree with him. Church and state will get married in the process - as long as they aren't gay - although there will be much talk about "right reason, precedence, and the common good," to cloud the fundamentally religious nature of his argument] And that is the definition of marriage. [Mr. Bush has a definition of marriage that he thinks is the right definition. And whether you like it or not he wants to make it illegal to disagree.] I believe in the sanctity of marriage. [This is a basic grade-school gimmick. Under the pretense of supporting a "proper" institution he infers that it is improper to allow same sex couples to marry. This allows him to sound positive without stating the negative.] I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman. [Again, he states the affirmative point, when what he is really saying is that that all other forms of marriage are illegitimate. No one would argue that most marriages are between a man and a woman. It just takes a small-minded person to be unable to allow any other forms of marriage to exist. And it takes a complete fundamentalist extremist to enact legislation to support this pinched world view.] And I think we ought to codify that one way or the other. [You should get your dictionary out for this one. This word has a very specific meaning: "To reduce to a code." This word was chosen very carefully. Mr. Bush has told you what he thinks, and now he's saying that the law will be the next forum for this discussion.] And we've got lawyers looking at the best way to do that. [Translation: "My ideology will become your law. No faggot or dyke is going to get "married" on my watch. I got laws to fix them homos and lesbos, and I'm about to pass a law in Washington in order to put an end to something that God started but couldn't finish."]

It would be interesting to ask George W. Bush about Dick Cheney's openly gay daughter. Would the President tell Dick Cheney that his daughter is, "Part of a corrosive element of American society which must be corralled through legislation which limits their access to the freedoms and protections which heterosexual members of this country are afforded." You're damn right he would. He already did. And what does Dick think of all this? He seems to have misplaced his compassionate conservatism and his family values.

Or maybe his silence is just his way of reminding us that God said, "Be fruitful and multiply," he didn't just say "Be fruitful," and he most certainly didn't say "Be a fruit."