I have a bad feeling this article from The Onion of the future will turn out to be all too true.

Sometimes the folks at The Onion really know how to drive a point home. Take, for example, this news item from Decatur, IL in the year 2083:

Future U.S. History Students: ‘It’s Pretty Embarrassing How Long You Guys Took To Legalize Gay Marriage’ | The Onion – America’s Finest News Source.

The classroom of 15-year-olds at MacArthur High School—all of whom were born in the late 2060s and grew up never questioning the obvious fact that homosexual couples deserve the right to get married—were reportedly “amazed” to learn in their Modern U.S. History: 2081 Edition textbooks that as late as the 2020s, gays and lesbians actually had to fight for the constitutional right to wed.

“Wow, that is nuts,” said student Jeremy Golliver, who claimed he knew gay rights was a struggle “like, a hundred years ago” but didn’t realize it lasted so long. “It’s really embarrassing, when you think about it. Just the fact that people in this century were actually saying things like, ‘No, gays should not be allowed to marry,’ and were getting all up in arms about it, as if homosexuals weren’t full citizens or something. It’s insane.”

“I mean, was everybody just a huge bigot back then or what?” Golliver added.

Think about all the crap from our history that we look back on and are amazed that we, as a nation, ever allowed it to occur. Slavery, forced segregation, Japanese internment camps, etc. and so on. I have no doubts that gays will eventually get the same rights to marriage as everyone else. It’s only a matter of time, but it’d be nice if it were sooner rather than later. As this article points out, it’s already been entirely too long:

“If they thought it was the right thing to do, why didn’t President Clinton or Obama or whoever just say, ‘Hey, discriminating against gay people is wrong, so let’s let them get married’?” said Pete Merriam, 15, who was born in an age with no death penalty and with nationwide approval of a woman’s right to choose. “I get that they wanted to be reelected or whatever, but come on. That is so stupid.”

“And look, our textbooks say civil rights legislation was passed in the 1960s, but then it somehow took another three generations to legalize gay marriage?” added classmate Jennifer Goldberg, laughing. “How does that even make sense? Oh my God, and those civil union things were ridiculous, too. Just let gay people get married already!”

As if this vision of future America weren’t already liberal enough, the closing paragraph cinches it:

After concluding the week’s examination of the history of gay marriage rights, classroom sources in the year 2083 said they would be moving on to the topic of how their grandparents’ generation was too late to do anything about global warming.

Sure, it’s just a bit of parody from some of the finest craftsmen around.

But damned if it doesn’t feel like it’s truer than you’d like it to be.

5 thoughts on “I have a bad feeling this article from The Onion of the future will turn out to be all too true.

  1. Why should they legalize gay marriage? Marriage is, by definition, between a man and woman. The best thing is to abolish marriages entirely since its nothing more than a religious and tax ceremony.

  2. When a conversation about gay marriage starts, and I hear someone start to say “by definition…” or “the definition of…”, that’s pretty much where I stop reading.

    I have little doubt that the Onion is correct. Though I think the question that will probably be asked more is “How the hell did Bush ever get elected?”

  3. The Oxford definition.

    marriage |ˈmarij|
    noun
    1 the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.

  4. Only in a society as dumb as ours are people (i.e. conservatives) going to reduce themselves to dictionary fundamentalism, or the notion that a given dictionary should shape our laws. But, alright…

    Merriam-Webster:
    Definition of MARRIAGE

    1
    a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

    And, from Oxford, which you saw fit to leave out:
    informal a similar union between partners of the same sex:
    gay marriage

    These are dictionaries. Written by people. These things aren’t written by higher extraterrestrial or supernatural entities. They are often revised. Get serious.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>