U Weekly. Serving The Ohio State University in Columbus Ohio

Gays, right?

By Todd Seabrook

When President Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act last Wednesday, Oct. 28, the gay community was happy. Pun. That is because the bill included a hate crimes amendment - something that was implemented in the 1960s, which, if you can't do the math, was nearly 50 years ago.

Holy balls. Pun. What took so long?

Obama has been held over the flames (pun) in recent weeks for not carrying out his campaign promises on gay rights, and he finally answered with a first step - a step which is really 50 years late, but we'll take it nevertheless. But the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1999 won't appease the gay community for long. The two issues that can't be kept in the closet so easily (pun) are the asinine Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and the logarithmically more asinine Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) policy of our military.

DADT is a less-than-limp-wristed slap in the face to any intelligent person, and indeed, to all humans in the history of homo(pun)sapiens. This policy, which prohibits openly gay and lesbian citizens to serve in the military, was enacted under the Clinton administration and turned out to be a two-left-footed compromise that laughs in the face of gay rights. The theory behind it is that homosexuals would disrupt unit cohesion and endanger combat effectiveness, which is founded on the stereotype that all gays are flaming, or all lesbians are butch, and all they want to do is play grab-ass. Asinine. In his presidential campaign, Obama promised to repeal DADT, and the Army isn't protesting. The United States Secretary of the Army, John McHugh, recently said that those wanting to serve their country should be allowed.

While the Army reaches around to the gay community (pun), there is still a larger, gayer issue at hand: The Defense of Marriage Act. This was also passed under the Clinton administration, stating that no state has to acknowledge a same-sex marriage from another state, and defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman. The real problem here is that the DOMA prevents the happiness of a select group of Americans, which otherwise would cause no harm to anyone. Some have qualified it as a Bill of Attainder, which punishes specific groups or individuals and, of course, is unconstitutional. Obama will have a much harder time getting this reversed (pun?), because Congress can't get its head out of its ass (pun), and a large portion of our country hasn't figured out that racism is not implemented individually but is a large-scale social structure. I don't see much hope in the near future for those people who have a lifetime of embedded intolerance and self-endorsement under their belts to change anytime soon.

If you think this is a misrepresentation of DOMA, I have no clever way of saying you are wrong. People's happiness is what is at stake, and the bold-faced, unmitigated selfishness of people who assume the right to say who and who can't have marital happiness lies at the core of DOMA. No pun. Every argument against same-sex marriage - ranging from the collapse of the family (which is already collapsed) to the idea that animals aren't gay so we shouldn't be either - is almost comical in their intolerance. Religious morality has no bearing, since everyone has the right to ignore religion in America, and the economic implications are so minor it is laughable.

Nothing bad will happen if homosexuals are allowed to marry. Nothing. Once again, I have no other way to say it. Obama is making the right moves, but he can't do it alone. It's going to take everyone to ensure the happiness of all citizens, and to not cater to those who couldn't see their own intolerance if it was shoved up their asses. Pun.

Nailed it. Pun.

Originally Published: November 4, 2009

↑ Back to the top