Poking at hornet's-nest issue of gay marriage
As I write this deathless prose, everyone is still waiting for a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on a case that could impact gay marriage. So that prompted these tongue-in-cheek musings. Hey, your ye olde assistant editor gets the big bucks to poke at the occasional hornet's nest.I have felt lukewarm toward gay rights causes because I resented never getting a chance to vote on changing the definition of the word "gay." Never got an email. Never got a memo. Live and let live, but leave the English language alone.You essentially can't use gay in its original meaning anymore without mass confusion: "having or showing a merry, lively mood," which has dropped to the third choice in one online dictionary.You just know there are some kids in a middle school history class snickering when they crack open textbooks to a chapter about the 1890s to study the Gay Nineties. Snicker, snicker, snicker!And who did a research study that all gays (new meaning) must be gay (original meaning)? How about a little truth in advertising, please. There surely must be some depressed gay people out there somewhere, or perhaps gays who are only mildly amused and amusing.Given that I read about a recent poll that 5 percent of the population identified themselves as homosexual, I wonder why it seems so many broadcast TV shows now add obligatory gay characters to placate demographic groups.The last time TV shows had funny jokes or storylines about gays was the early 1990s when "Roseanne" and "Seinfeld" were on the air, not that there is anything wrong with that.And what's up with the American Civil Liberties Union? ACLU ordinarily concerns itself with lawsuits, but now is trying to act as TV programmers by putting pressure on the writers of "Modern Family" to let the gay couple characters on the show marry. Plus I always wonder about a possible snowball effect from major legislation or a court decision. Wouldn't you think there would be some ticked-off Mormons somewhere if gay marriage is sanctioned by court ruling? Should polygamy be reconsidered in that event? Utah probably still would not be a state if church officials had not ended the practice of polygamy.Any Supreme Court decision is sure to open a Pandora's box of more questions.