De - filed

So our pal Britney, undisputed role model for millions of girls (and boys) the world over, tied the knot this weekend in Lost Wages.

The nups were quickly annulled, but they will undoubtedly remain the topic of gossip columns and fodder for entertainment news for weeks.

I was going to shy away from making this a topic of my own rants, but I simply can't resist the glaring implications that this high-speed divorce has for marriages everywhere. You see, my near and dear lesbian roomates declared their love last week by getting engaged (gorgeous ring, too). Since we are residents of Massachusetts, they will (in theory) be able to tie the knot in around 150 days when the ruling of the SJC takes effect.

So what does all this have to do with Britney? Let me tell you. For years, conservative bigots and religious zealots have argued against (and in many states forever banned) same-sex marriage. Not civil union, not domestic partnership, marriage. Their main beef: same-sex marriage defiles the idea and institution of marriage.

I'm not going to bore you with statistics about divorce rates or rants that may come later about rights versus privileges. Instead, I'm going to keep my point simple. If televised "pick-a-husband" reality shows, presidential infidelity, or 24-hour celebrity weddings haven't already removed all credibility from the institution of marriage, a few committed queer couples tying the knot surely couldn't do it either.

So lighten up, kids. Which example would you rather set for impressionable kids:a world where a 22-year-old pop siren can tie the knot in a drunken stupor but a woman can't visit her dying lesbian partner of 30 years in the hospital, or a world of equality where some of the honor and committment of wearing those rings is cherished and restored.

That's my two cents. Thanks Britney, for teaching us all a lesson.

Part II - January 6th

Kjersten, one of the roommates of which I spoke earlier, found out an interesting fact about the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision. It seems that the deadline of 180 days to implement their decision falls exactly on the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, the end of "separate but equal" and racial segregation.

Coincidence? I think not. This was a deliberate action by the Court to show that it will not tolerate any solution that reconstructs the "separate but equal" doctrine (civil unions or some amalgamation). A law that shirks away from full same-sex marriage does nothing more than construct a separate class of union, which history has shown is never "equal." Same-sex marriage has its historical equivalent -- anti-miscegenation laws. Can't we learn from our mistakes?

Read the full article HERE.

Flown by mariposa at 03:53 PM on January 05, 2004