Ok, Robert Driemeyer's blog routinely inspires me. I'd written about the Gay Marriage Ban a couple times this week, even wrote a letter to my Senator Saxby Chambliss, plus John McCain and Lou Dobbs. see:
Is Lou Dobbs Reading My Blog?
Senator Saxby Chambliss' Response to my Letter
Bush Rallies Support For Democrats in 2006

But I didn't have that Aha moment until I responded to Robert's Blog at The Comdey Soap Box. Check out his article Nice to See Everything Works Itself Out

I have to keep track of my own diatribes and so here is my response:

I thought I agreed with your view on Gay marriage. If someone wants to get married great, who cares what sex either partner is, gives, has, wants, eats, feels, dreams of or gets off on. If it doesn't hurt me or the children, who cares. Afterall its all about the kids . . .

Then I thought back and remembered, contract marriage was established such that men could assume property rights from women upon the execution of the marriage whether the property came from a dowry or from the latest hot young widow to enter the singles scene in the 1890's.

A marriage contract was basically set up to oppress women!

From this perspective, I can understand exactly where Bush is coming from half of the time. There are no women to be oppressed when two gay men marry. They could oppress the hell out of each other with a regular old contract, but they want a marriage contract and not a partnership contract to exchange property rights with.
So Bush is unhappy, no women getting themselves Oppressed!

Following this line of logic, when to gay women marry, Bush should be happy.

Not heterosexual men, we don't want gay women getting married for sexual reasons. We don't give a rats ass about 'the sanctity of the family', we just want more available lesbians for our fantasies.

When I was growing up, we didn't read Penthouse letters or Oui! to read about a happily married lesbian couple. We read it to here about hot and steamy lesbian sex, which ultimately ended up with a personal invitation for us to join in hot steamy lesbian fun. All heterosexual men deep down inside know that a lesbian fantasy is never complete until the lesbians beg you(the hetero man) to join in and help them out with the obvious.

Anyway back on point, if two gay women marry, there are no women to opress. This can't make Bush happy! :(

What Bush's wee little brain can't fathom is that in a gay lady marriage, there's actually twice the opportunity for women to be oppressed. Now if Bush were a little smarter, he'd figure that out. But that's not going to happen anytime soon. Everyone on capital hill knew this a long time ago, and that's why everyone was so pessimistic about the bill and the Constitutional Amendment going no where.

They figured out what Bush couldn't. Gay marriage has the potential to oppress more women, so they didn't vote to ban it. Not because they are against the idea of a ban, Congress voted it down in the Senate because they too like Bush want to oppress more women. If this weren't true, the Equal Rights Amendment would have been put back through and sent around for ratification again. They disagreed with Bush not because they stand on a higher moral ground, but instead because they realize he's an idiot (fool on a good day) and that his plan to ban gay marriage would backfire and decrease the number of oppressed women.

There is no truth to the rumor that the males in the Senate did this to impress Cheney's daughter hoping for a crack at the realization of their own lesbian fantasy.