Anti-gay Glenn can’t see irony in marriage fight

[COMMENTARY] Well, marriage equality for homosexuals has arrived in California. Now all those flamin’ queers in the land of Reagan can strut their stuff with a piece of paper that recognized their relationships as just that, a social contract between two people, “to have and to hold, in sickness and in health, ’til death do us part.”

By the way, almost 48 hours into the gay marriage happenings, the world has not ended. God has not smote the California coast, hurricanes have not suddenly formed, and God has seen it clear not to put on a demonstration of pyrotechnics the likes of which the world has not seen since the destruction of Sodom. And I had my popcorn ready to go for that display.

But seriously, this reality of two women, or two men, exchanging vows has proven to be too much for Michigan’s Gary Glenn, an anti-gay activist who parades about pretending to speak for all of Michigan’s families as the head of the American Family Association of Michigan. From a press release on Glenn’s Web site:

“The California decision proves that activist judges cannot be trusted to uphold either existing marriage laws or even a vote of the people themselves,” Glenn said, “and it proves how right Michigan voters were to secure the definition of marriage in Michigan in our state Constitution in advance, before judges tried the same thing here.”

Continued -“It should also be a wakeup call to Americans that the real threat to radically redefine marriage is still very much alive,” Glenn said. “Even here in Michigan, our state laws and constitutional protections of marriage could be undone by activist judges if the federal Defense of Marriage Act is amended or repealed as early as next year, as major candidates for federal office are promising to do if elected.”

It should be noted that on top of the Federal DOMA, there is a state DOMA, and a state Constitutional amendment. Gary is playing on fears just like he did to get his nasty little amendment passed in 2004.

Oh yes, of course, we should also note the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution, which assures us that when we arrive in Florida our driver’s license from Michigan is valid, or when we visit Las Vegas for some gambling, the heterosexuals among us remain married. To date, Gary Glenn and his allies have not been able to remove that nagging federal constitutional issue– which is their real fear. A strict constructionist Supreme Court is going to have a hard time turning the full faith and credit clause on its head– otherwise that would make them “activist judges.” 

Now here is the irony for the family values man and his Web site. Right there on the same page, and directly following the announcement:

“NEWS-CA court proves wisdom of MI voters’ approval of marriage amendment,”

Is another, more interesting piece of news:

“Study: Divorce, unwed births cost Mich. taxpayers $1.5 billion a year Family group backs bill to change state divorce law.”

So on the one hand, he wants to stop people from getting married, but on the other hand, he wants to make sure those that are married can’t divorce.

“Even a small improvement in the health of marriages in Michigan would result in an enormous savings to taxpayers. Stronger families and fewer family breakups mean less crime, less poverty, and less reliance on costly government programs and social services,” Glenn wrote.

Now mind you, Glenn opposes second parent adoption legislation that would pave the way for same-sex couples or other duos (say an aunt and a grandmother) to adopt children from our crumbling and strained social services system. He doesn’t want LGBT people to get married. He has helped assure that many of those LGBT families in Michigan will suffer the horrors of being without health care, but in the next breath he is arguing that stronger families and fewer family breakups will help society. Ironic, then, that by expanding the institution of marriage, Gary thinks that we will destroy it.

I debated Gary on this issue in before the so-called Marriage Amendment was before the voters. We were at Central Michigan University. And I remember his commenting about how heterosexual marriage declined in Scandinavian countries when those countries legalized gay marriage. I came back with, let’s look at those countries, shall we? They have less violence, less divorce, less poverty, and the literacy rate in both math and reading are incredible. Let’s see, fewer Brittany Spears 55 hour marriages or stronger, healthier, less violent community. Which one is better? I just can’t imagine…