Shut Up And Listen 205

I Don't Think You're A Bigoted Asshole, But . . .

I am really, really getting sick of sitting down to read the editorial section of the paper and seeing letters about gay marriage that contain the phrase "I have nothing against gay people, but . . ."

Fuck you, you bigoted asshole, of course you do.

Of course, the paper would never print that response. But it's the truth. You can give me all of the reasons why gay marriage is bad, but when it comes down to it, the only reason that's really there is that you have something against gay people. There's no other reason that makes any sort of sense. It's in the Bible? It also says I should stone people who have sex before marriage. It's tradition? So is women being the property of men. It will somehow make marriage mean less? Tell that to the fifty percent divorce rate, along with the large amounts of adultery. It will lead to polygamy, bestiality and The End Of The World As We Know It? Well, considering that the courts have not ruled in favour of the first two, I don't see that as likely, and the fact that *gasp!* gay people have gotten married and amazingly enough the world still stands, kind of kills that last one. So, what's left? Some good old fashioned bigotry against gay people.

Now, believe it or not, but I'll accept that as a legitimate reason. I may not agree with it, I may not like, I may fucking hate it, but at least I can accept that as a "good" reason why you think gay people shouldn't get married. All of those other reasons have holes, but irrational hatred of a group? That is a good reason why you want to oppress them. If you hate them, it's logical that you would want to fuck them over at any chance. But, of course, no one wants to just admit that they're a bigoted asshole, do they? No, they've got to come up with all of those other lame reasons to cover their asses. It's pathetic is what it is. No courage of their convictions.

Coming up for vote soon in the House of Commons here will be a bill that will legalise gay marriage after the Supreme Court said that to deny gay people the right to get married would violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (after a good chunk of the provincial courts said the same thing). It will be free vote for the Liberals (meaning they won't be expected to toe the party line), although the cabinet has been told to vote for the bill and there are rumours that backbenchers have been "told" unofficially that if they plan to vote against it, then maybe it would be best if they didn't show up that day. Apparently this is a minor scandal or something, that it's a travesty of democracy, blah, blah, blah, but how is it? Imagine that, a party telling its members that if they aren't going to vote with the party then maybe they should shut up. If they didn't do that, then that would be a scandal.

Here in London, one of the MPs from the city, Pat O'Brien has been rather vocal about his opposition to the bill and recently said that he may just leave the party if it passes. He's not my MP, but fuck, what an asshole. MPs like this amuse me, because I know that no one really cares what he as a person thinks. It's a fact. Really. When the average Canadian voter votes, it decides its vote by this criteria: the most influential aspect is the party of the candidate, then the leader of the party (who would become Prime Minister), and then who the person actual is. That means just since the largest number of people in his riding voted for him, O'Brien shouldn't get the stupid any idea that anyone really gives a fuck about him. Basically, if the bill passes and he does leave the Liberals, his political career may just die right there and then (there are, of course, exceptions to the preferences, but they usually stand pretty firm).

On this week's episode of Rick Mercer's Monday Report, there was a great one-minute sketch about tradition that I think should be the government's new commercial about the bill. They should go to Mercer, get his permission and then run it during every commercial break on the four major Canadian networks. You can watch it here (once it's in the archives, go to the week of February 14, 2005 and it's the tradition video--they don't have direct links, sorry). (Also, I almost want to write my local MP and demand that she introduce a bill in the House that requests we uphold the traditional meaning of "bastard" now.)

Paul Martin recently spoke out in favour of the bill, but he did it with nice language. Why is that the opposition only ever get to be loud assholes about shit? I mean, how cool would it be if Paul Martin just came out and gave a nice, aggressive speech where he called opponents of the bill bigots who are the equivalents of members of the KKK and shit like that? Oh, I'm sure there would be a nice little scandal, but what are you supposed to say in response?

Oh. Right. "I don't hate gay people, but . . ." Because we all believe that.