refine + redefine

But Didn’t Breeders Already Mutilate the Definition of Marriage?

Marriage is a curious institution that, at one point, didn’t represent any type of freedom or liberty. But over the course of history, heterosexuals have redefined the M-word to create its current form: the willing union of two people in love (or convenience). So how come the biggest defenders of this institution of marriage (read: Mark Sanford, John Ensign) are also its biggest violators?

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #dansavage #marriage stories and more


  • Keith Kimmel

    Heh, good question.

  • Ken S

    Personally, I’m an advocate for bloody revolution. Oppressed peoples in times past took up arms against their oppressors and are lauded today because they *were* on the side of justice even though the majority at the time didn’t recognize it. When exactly did everyone get so ‘civilised’ as to become doormats, allowing themselves to be walked on again and again because “well– just or unjust– they *are* the majority, so we’ll just have to keep trying to reason with them.” Fuck no. Whether it’s 1% of other people or 99%, if they come at you possessed by injustice and you are in the right, you either consent to be a victim or you fight as long and hard as it takes until you’re either dead or you’ve won– whether that means utterly breaking your aggressor’s spirit or breaking his neck.

    When your enemy is unreasonable, you have no reasonable recourse. When your enemy is irrational, rational arguments won’t sway them. When your enemy is bent on your nullification, you *have* to realise that you’re in a fight for your life– not some philosophical debate but a knock-down, drag-out, kill-or-be-killed battle for your survival– and you *are* entitled to defend yourself. And make no mistake, for many on the other side the denial of marriage equality isn’t “it,” it’s merely a holding action while they rally for a pushback. They won’t be content to just keep marriage as their ‘special right,’ next they’ll want to take fags’ votes away, then forcibly “rehabilitate” you or– failing that– extermination. They want you gone, and won’t stop until you are or they are. So get in it for real. Answer them in the only language they understand: brute force. In the world they would live in “might makes right,” so get mighty and give it to them, let them reap what they sow. Might their regressive hating asses into extinction the way they will you unless stopped.

    Because the only ‘right’ we really, actually have in nature is fight or flight; beyond that everything is an arbitrary, agreed-upon (or disagreed-upon), socially constructed luxury. Every ‘right’ except the choice to run or to dig in has been legislated to us, and can be legislated away from us– whether by democracy or by dictator– under the authority of superior force. No supernatural entity will protect you or your rights from an oppressor’s bullet, you have to call them out and shoot them down. In their minds, they’re in a war; you won’t convince them otherwise (because they’re deranged), so unless you plan to forfeit you have to show up and you have to win.

    *Then* you can invoke reason with rest– the fence-sitters who weren’t personally ‘against’ your equality but were led like half-awake sheep by your really committed enemies. By then if they haven’t seen that your cause was just, they’ll at least see the reason of backing you because you won.

  • ptp

    Of course, Dan ends this eloquent call for equality and tolerance for gays with his own insensitivity towards people with mental retardation. Very classy, as usual, Mr Savage.

  • Attmay

    @3 PTP:

    Get off your censorious high horse, PTP. Our enemies are suffering from a form of mental retardation. It’s called religious fundamentalism. And I thought we were at war with it.

  • Robert, NYC

    I agree with you, Ken. I think the defeats in Maine, California, and probably New York and I suspect Iowa and New Hampshire will suffer the same fate, that this will leave us with no other alternative but to resort to militancy. Its the only language bigots understand. The dems need to be put on notice, either deliver the goods or kiss our votes good bye. That’s the problem, they’ve taken them for granted for far too long. We’re a large voting bloc, the democratic party can’t succeed without us, its up to us to make sure that they see us flexing our muscle for a change. Getting antsy about DADT, DOMA…isn’t enough. I will make one prediction in the absence of marriage equality, DOMA will NOT be overturned and I will be pleasantly surprised if DADT is repealed before 2012.

  • Andrew

    Very well said. Best 2.5 minute clip on the issue I’ve seen in a while. (FYI PTP: I doubt he was using the word as a slur. Bad choice of words, yes, but doubt it was meant that way)

  • RocketInMO

    Simple – take government out of the business of marriage, period. The union of two people (for this life or longer, if that’s your belief system) isn’t about a civil contract, but about faith in your partnership (supported by an organized religion or not).

  • Attmay

    @7 RocketInMO:

    If it’s not supported by an organized religion (i.e. a marriage of atheists who refuse to marry in a church), who would support it?

    Unless you can answer that, the “get the government out of marriage” idea is a non-starter.

  • Rainfish

    Focus on a massive, nationally organized, effort to put GLBT money into a truly LIBERAL third party. Just look how that asshole Lieberman (who ran as an Independent) has Harry Reid’s balls in his pocket and how Lieberman is controlling everything in the Senate with his Insurance Lobbyist Campaign Contribution driven “I’m just voting my conscience” bullshit song and dance routine on Capital Hill.

    Just a ten percent makeup of liberal Independents in the House, as well as a few well-placed liberal Independent Senators here and there, could act as very influential powerbrokers in order to get GLBT legislation passed.

    As Independents they could caucus with either Republicans or Democrats while turning one rat against the other rat seeking control of Congress. And, in a closely divided congress, they could shift control back and forth, at will, if their asses aren’t properly kissed in the fawning manner Sen. Lieberman demands today in the Senate from his limp dick Democratic colleagues.

    Break the strangle-hold of the fucking two party system. Outside of the remote possibility of an all encompassing pro-GLBT U.S. Supreme Court ruling unambiguously applying each of the principles of the 14th Amendment to all of our freedoms, then a third party is the only way we are going to advance our civil rights in these un-United States.

    The Battered Wife Syndrome relationship that the GLBT community has with the self-serving DNC is getting really, really old. If you truly want the DNC attention, then stop voting for the douche-bags in the party who do not fully support our civil rights nor represent our interests.

    Unless you’re into a lifetime of humiliation, bondage and bootlicking, then please just stop the fucking madness at the ballot box and break free of the HRC/DNC Pied Piper’s song which has had too many of us slow march, like pliant little Lemmings, off the cliffs of our own disillusionment.

  • Robert, NYC

    Rainfish, Independents are the largest voting bloc in the country. Looking at a Gallup poll yesterday, it doesn’t bode well for the Dems. 52% of Independents polled said they’d vote republican in 2010, while 30% would vote for Democrats. Don’t be so sure of Independents, most are more conservative than you think. We need another party, only a progressive one like the Greens. We won’t get far supporting Dems year after year, there’s always something that comes up to delay equality. Even if it hadn’t been for the economic crisis we’re in, I really don’t believe we’d be any further ahead. They’ve taken our votes for granted for far too long. Next time, we have to tell them to deliver or else suffer the consequences.

  • RocketInMO

    From Attmy:

    “If it’s not supported by an organized religion (i.e. a marriage of atheists who refuse to marry in a church), who would support it?…Unless you can answer that, the “get the government out of marriage” idea is a non-starter.”

    Wrong. Faith isn’t about organized religion of any kind (Christian or otherwise, and to include atheism – it is the very definition of non-organized religious beliefs, it’s a set of “non-beliefs” to quote Bill Maher).

    Marriage is a matter of “faith” in that two (or more) people will commit to be together for life (or whatever time frame), “faith” doesn’t have to be defined by a church or organized religion (or “Faith”). It may simply be the belief, or “faith, ” or agreement that these people are prepared to commit their lives to one another for whatever time they agree to commit to, period.

    No need for organized anything. That’s the whole point. Government acknowledging any organized religion or “set of beliefs” is, by definition, the problem.

    A commitment between people as adults to be together in whatever way and by whatever definition is up to them, not for the government to define at all. To say otherwise is to agree with our former governors – the Church of England and the government of UK. Freedom of religion means that freedom from all defined religion also applies.

    No one needs to “support it.” That’s not a function of government, nor society through it. Being in a committed relationship is about those involved, not some dogma acknowledged by society through government approval.

    My statement was, and continues to be, one of how things “ought” to be, it’s not a policy argument, but an ethical one.

  • Jake

    I am in full agreement with LGBTQ and their straight supporters (and yes they’re out there, if not, why do organizations like PFLAG exist?) starting a new Independent party.. I have an idea, we can call it the Fierce Stonewall Party. I do think that another Stonewall is coming, and I recently changed my vote to independent for the first time in years. And yes, I do live in MA, but I voted for Kennedy, he was the most cogent of the 3 candidates. I think a 2 party system is going the way of the DODO bird and polar bear anyways, thanks to the SCOTUS. We’ll have the McDonald’s party, the AIG Party, and the Phizer Party.
    And as far as gay marriage, since Disney allows same sex partnership benefits, we’ll have marriage too, complete with a Mickey Mouse minister. LOL

Comments are closed.