When I was 21, a beautiful woman leaned over and kissed me in a bar. Unprompted. Full flush, on the mouth. I was in the middle of a sentence.

My friend Chris, an incredibly sexy man in his own right, owns a T-shirt with the phrase “Don’t assume I’m straight” printed on the front and on the back, “Don’t assume I’m gay.” Chris has art tattooed in sleeves down both arms and across much of his chest. Rumor has it, his penis is pierced. He works as a writer and photographer. I know which way he swings, but I’m not telling.
I dated a man once who didn’t know how to change the tire on a car. He sat in the passenger seat while I jumped up and down on the tire iron trying to loosen the lug nuts that the serviceman had over-tightened after mounting my studs. Eventually I got the tire off, the spare on, and the guy was left by the wayside.
Lately, there has been a lot of talk about gender and sexuality and the roles of men and women in the media. On Feb. 12, Gavin Newsom, the mayor of San Francisco, directed the city to begin granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Since then, more than 3,200 licenses have been granted to people — not just from the Bay Area, but from around the world.
Newsom’s action was in direct opposition to a California voter-approved law prohibiting gay and lesbian marriages. California State Attorney General Bill Lockyer has said he plans to file a lawsuit against the city to prevent further licenses from being issued.
Newly elected California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger appeared on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” saying he fears the allowance of same-sex marriages will result in civil unrest.
“All of a sudden, we see riots, we see protests, we see people clashing,” Schwarzenegger said on the show. “The next thing we know, there is injured or there is dead people. We don’t want it to go to that extent.”
On Tuesday, President George W. Bush backed a Constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage in the United States. He said he believed such an amendment would protect the sanctity of the “most enduring human institution.”
Here is the president of our nation — a nation that touts itself on personal liberty and opportunity, a nation that was founded in part because of the pursuit for religious freedom — suggesting that language be added to the Constitution that would not ensure freedom but would instead limit it. Way to go, George.
If we as a nation choose to follow our president’s advice and place a Constitutional limit on the freedom of individuals to marry whom they choose, then we are doing more than a segment of our population a disservice. We would be wronging the population in its entirety by unjustly restricting freedom.
Mark Twain once said, “Love is not a product of reasonings and statistics. It just comes — none knows whence — and cannot explain itself.”
We can’t choose the people we fall in love with, but we can choose who we marry. Isn’t it important not to limit that choice?