Get Out of My Bedroom

In an era filled with the shadows of debt and economic uncertainty, the issue of marriage continues to be a theological lightening rod within the realm of politics. But after a closer, more progressive examination, the matrimonial lightening rod feels just like the oppressive wet blanket that it has always been in regards to individual freedom.

My guess would be that ever since the beginnings of our human existence, there have always been segments of society that would say and do anything to try and control the parameters of marriage, especially when it’s applied to the marriages of others. Whether it was due to the fact that a potential mate was perceived as being too ethnically unfriendly, too unattractive, not attractive enough, too promiscuous, too reproductively barren, part of the wrong religion, part of no religion, tied to an impoverished background, or half of some ungodly same-sex union, the right of two consenting adults to join together has traditionally been hampered, harassed and often hijacked, if at all possible, but why?

If the economic uncertainty of American debt and the lack of economic discipline and leadership on American overspending are the two greatest bogeymen that now haunt the American dream, why is this straw-marriage piñata being hung up at almost every conservative candidate’s rhetorical, covered wagon? From Presidential nominees Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum to the so-called freedom hawk and staunch Libertarian Ron Paul, the banner of traditional marriage is being carried around and hoisted like it’s the American flag of societal morality. An insignificant beacon of our culture it may be, but a relevant topic in the scope of viable threats it most certainly is not.

On one hand, Republicans and Tea Baggers like to trumpet fiscal responsibility, but on the other hand, they cannot stop their clamorous ballyhooing over theological, societal, relationship totalitarianism. In other words, let’s shrink the size of government until it’s infinitesimal enough to be financially ineffective through programs such as FEMA, but keep it just big enough to impose the White, Christian “God Doctrine” on the multitudes of believers and non-believers by enforcing a big, government stamp of approval on the Christian sanctity of marriage.

And, there is a very good reason for this, and it has absolutely nothing to do with “defending” marriage. DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act that was signed by Democratic President Bill Clinton, describes marriage as the union between a man and a woman through federal law and basically allows each state to decide for itself, while enabling states the right to refuse the recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states. President Bush even went so far as to offer up a posturing, Constitutional amendment to further protect the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, but all of this has much more to do with the ideology behind the marriage between a man and a woman than the institution of marriage itself.

It all comes back to the acceptance and promotion of the “God Doctrine.” Conservatives have always complained that liberals were taking God out of society. Well, the undisputed solidification of a traditional, man and woman marriage is the political and societal equivalent of “The Empire Strikes Back,” not to unite Adam and Eve, but to put another unsatisfactory, Cain-like mark on Adam and Steve or Eve and Lilith. It’s a quintessential, yet furtive, ransacking of the concept of separation of Church and State when any level of government upholds a law like DOMA, because you cannot Constitutionally or lawfully uphold one marriage ideology without preemptively dropping the other one.

For all that it’s worth, laws such as DOMA stand pompously erect on a stack of Holy Bibles distributing the denials of sin to those who have been theologically and legislatively designated to carry it like a used, second tier cross on their disparaged backs in the name of a religious interpretation. Any conservative, Republican, Tea Bagger, or pandering Democrat who would waste another second of political airtime to try and dictate marriage at the expense of dismantling choice has more in common with Great Britain’s King George III than any Founding Father they have managed to distort into their misguided, political fantasies. After all, the argument could easily be made about how the true American dream is steeped in the choice of democracy and not the judgments of a theological monarchy.

It just goes to show how dressing up physically like the Founding Fathers and dressing up ideologically like the Founding Fathers are two totally different things, because trying to incorporate the right-wing version of the Jesus Christ love connection as a heterosexual, Cupid guru or some anti-gay Dr. Love via the big, liberally intrusive federal government reeks of hypocritical hogwash and democratic decay at the hands of traditional, marriage trumpeters like Michele Bachmann and President Bush, who apparently see no problem in utilizing the federal government to indoctrinate the present and the future based on theological comfort zones of the past.

Regardless of how people choose to spin it, human behavior is derived through choice. While the philosophical teachings of the Holy Bible or religion in general are intended to be suggestions for that choice of human behavior, the freedom to accept or reject those suggestions remains a tenet of our democracy. It is only when the suggestions become demands of legality that such democracy becomes a theological dictatorship, which is great for the afterlife, but not a lot of fun for the here and now! And, politicians who equate life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness through the limited spectrum of one philosophical interpretation of a “God Doctrine” as a fitting accompaniment to democracy of any kind should actually read such documents as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as much they like to pretentiously bloviate about them.

This is the price we pay for democracy in the greatest nation on earth, as egotistically appointed by the entitled arrogance of holy rolling fear mongers. Yes, you have every conservative right to expect and demand that your children grow up and follow the non-gay, non-interracial, non-Islamic path that you’ve fearfully selected for them, but your children ALSO Constitutionally reserve the right to evolve into adults, look right into your eyes, and tell you to go and copulate yourself! It’s their Democratic, big government right to do so, and there is no legislation, theological or otherwise, that should ever be passed to change that.

Despite the bigoted popularity of DOMA for dummies, the institution of marriage must be defended by its participants, while the right to be a participant must be protected by the government. It’s a shame that the federal government is so reluctant to do it, because the gender of the two consenting, adult participants is and should be irrelevant. People should take the advice of Rudy Giuliani and immediately pry their big, snooping noses out of other people’s bedrooms, because my sexual preference is not a referendum on my American patriotism, my American value, or my American citizenship! But if it is a referendum on my afterlife ticket, that’s my problem, not yours. So, would you kindly get the hell out of my bedroom?