Leave marriageact alone

Thursday, December 1, 2011

Last Friday, the day after Thanksgiving, a Boston television station’s newscaster introduced a piece on the New Hampshire Legislature’s upcoming attempt to repeal the state’s gay marriage act by wondering what effect it would have upon the Republican presidential primary.

As if that were the point. Hardly.

The point is, or at least should be, what effect this will have upon the men and women who legally married their partners, and what effect it will have upon the men and women who would like to legally marry their partners but won’t be able to if our regressive legislators repeal a perfectly reasonable law.

But for most television news shows, that’s not sexy. The Republican presidential primary is about, gee whiz, what stand will Mitt Romney take – this time, anyway – on gay marriage and what about Newt Gingrich whose only really clear stand on marriage is that he likes to do it often?

The television station, like our legislators, forgets that there are real people involved, or perhaps they don’t forget but just don’t care. In the case of TV, they know that more people will watch if Rick Perry gaffs again, or Michele Bachmann has something to say about late night television bands and their selection of introductory music. There isn’t much exciting about whether Jim can marry Paul or Eileen can marry Joan. Unless, of course, you happen to be Jim or Paul or Eileen or Joan and then you care. The Legislature’s leader, Bill O’Brien of Mont Vernon, was honest enough recently to flaut his hypocrisy when, at a town hall-type meeting in Mont Vernon, he told the audience that he has “relatives and friends who are gay” and supports the right of people to choose the partner they want but “being together as a marriage ... I just can’t” support that.

As in, “Some of my best friends are ...” Pick a noun: Black, gay, Jewish, Catholic, but “I just can’t support” allowing them to join the country club. In this case, the country club is marriage and, best friends or not, if you’re gay, you’re not getting in.

What does O’Brien say to these gay friends and relatives at, say, Thanksgiving dinner? He must invite them, or be invited by them. They are, after all, friends and relatives. Surely the subject comes up.

What he’s saying, in essence, is that he supports their “right” to be lovers outside of wedlock. Well, good for him; that’s a step in the right direction.

A step in the wrong direction would be the repeal of the law allowing gay men and women to marry. It smacks of bigotry and should be beneath us, all of us.

And, frankly, we really don’t care what Jon Huntsman or Ron Paul or, yes, even St. Newt the Marryingman think about it.