The gay marriage thing ain't going away

California, that liberal, big spending, high-tax state that is going broke, found time last week to intrude in yet another area mucked up by its high-minded attempts at control: gay marriage.

Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage, was narrowly passed by California voters in November 2008. The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments on March 5, and announced its ruling on May 26, which upheld Proposition 8, but allowed existing same-sex marriages to stand.

Even metro-sexual liberal Republican Governator Arnold Schwarzenegger came out against gay marriage, which was highly curious, this from a man who spent the majority of his formative years being oiled up by other men and posing with them in a Speedo.

This all started when Republican Constitutional lawyers filed suit against the State of California for allowing 18,000 gay marriages. It may be their last chance to make money since, between the Bush wiretaps and the Obama "empathy"-driven interpretation of the law, the Constitution may not be around to defend much longer.

I have long said that I do not care what consenting gay dudes do as long as they do not do it to me. Unless I fall asleep in the stall of a Greyhound bus station bathroom or on Senator Larry Craig's couch, I should be fine. And I fully understand those in the majority who are against gay marriage.

Yet the cool thing about my side of the debate is that those that do not want gay marriage do not have to get gay married. It is their choice, which is the best thing about freedom.

While I am not a fan of the mechanics of gay male relationships, as someone who values freedoms and personal responsibilities I do not believe it is the government's role to regulate what two consenting people do. From my research on the gay issue, I have come to realize that I would not be a lesbian. It just seems like a lot of work and requires an attention to detail.

Guess who said this: "America is a free society, which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. In this country, people are free to choose how they live their lives."

It was George W. Bush, the same guy who tried to put an anti-gay marriage bill before Congress. I suspect he did that at the behest of Dick Cheney, who was trying to get out of paying for his lesbian daughter's wedding.

It seems that the "sanctity of marriage" is only threatened in an election year or when the GOP is behind in the polls. That hypocrisy and unconscionable spending are why many of us left the Republican Party.

It harkens back to the "Old" in the Grand Old Party, where the Strom Thurman-brand of politics ("Lookie there fellers, there they are, let's get ‘em.") plays to the worst in us, just as the Democrats' politics of envy plays to the worst in our human nature.

I respect Miss California's statement of her belief against gay marriage. It is truly her view, and the liberal media devoured her for it.

Yet her view is the same one that Barack Obama professed. Isn't it interesting how the media conveniently ignores that? Could it be that Miss California gave her honest feelings on the matter and Obama is masking his views in the name of political expediency?

As soon as his teleprompter tells him to change his view, Obama will.

The subject of same-sex marriage is difficult for most people, and I respect Miss California more than I do Barack Obama for stating her true feelings on the matter. But, when faced with a tough choice, I find erring on the side of personal liberty and freedom is the thing to do. I think our Founding Fathers would agree.

Remember, they wrote the Constitution in powdered wigs and tight silk pants with ornate buttons. Most paintings depict them with their hands on their hips, looking very dramatic. I think they would side with the gays.

Ron Hart is a Southern libertarian columnist who writes a weekly column about politics and life. Read more at www.RonaldHart.com.