Something tells me that I really ought to be blogging about Bush's recent renewed support for a constitutional amendment to restrict marriage to folks like this (and no, I don't mean tmcd, I mean that brilliant, wonderful, insufferable character he somehow managed to call up yesterday). After all, this is my 'thing', right? I've been studying the debate over gay marriage for almost a decade now; I can sort through the recent history – from the Hawaii case, to the Defense of Marriage Act, to the first wave of state doma laws, to the first round of support for the FMA (last election time), to this one – without really thinking about it; and there are very few political issues about which I feel more strongly (or which resonate more personally).
Nonetheless, I just can't get inspired to say anything about it. What is there to say? Probably the best line to take is to mock the entire idea, which is what Tmcd does so beautifully. But I'm no good at satire. And there's only so many times that one can point out the hypocrisy of the whole thing. As Emery notes, the hypocrisy of it is now just a natural, normal element of the story. Of course it will never pass. Of course Bush isn't really all that interested or concerned about 'defending marriage'. Of course this is just a bone to the base.
Makes me think a rather awful thought: perhaps racist segregationists of the mid-20th century had more integrity than today's 'homophobes'. At least segregationists were fighting to defend entrenched economic interests; at least they were honestly defending privilege; at least they really believed in racism. (OK, maybe I can learn the skills of satire.) In contrast, and as both the MsM and they themselves would tell you, the politicians today who support the severe disenfranchisement of a significant portion of the population, and who wish to enshrine second-class citizenship status into the constitution itself, aren't reallly all that homophobic.
It's 'just political'. It's not politically efficacious policy, it's just the hollow statement. Just like that insane, evil guy (Phelps, I think is his name) who likes to 'picket' the funerals of gay people (specifically victims of hate crimes and victisms of AIDS), the statement is clear: 'we hate fags'.
And I suppose this, then, demonstrates two things: 1) why, if you're a writer, you need to write every day, and 2) why I find Butler's theory of performativity persuasive. Because I wasn't really all that worked up about the issue before I wrote about it; I didn't feel much over it. Now, I am. Now, I do.