Fagelas? No we're just merry....

Since it seems like everyone is talking about gay marriage these days, I figure I'll join the fray. Recently several states have passed legislation making gay marriage, which brought to reality something that was once not even to be spoken of. My basic assesment of the argument is a relatively simple one.

Gays would like to have equal station and rights as straight, married people in the eyes of the government. They should already be accorded this right under the equal protection clause, but leave it to Scalia and the other "traditional" justices to keep them at bay "using" the right hand of god. Seriously, like 100 years ago it wasn't legal for a black person and white person to get married... and now 2 men or 2 women. What if it was a black man/white man and a black/white woman? What then? I'll tell you what then... Scalia's fat head would implode into his fat neck. The Legislature attempted to bribe them with Civil Unions which offered gay couples a legal status and some if not all rights. The rights varied by country and jurisdiction and inherently resurrected the concept "separate but equal" in the eyes of many homosexual couples. The rights sought/provided for by civil unions vary widely from tax benefits, adoption, healthcare/medical decisions. Gays feel that if they this separate category of domestic partnership/civil unions permanently brands them as inferior to married couples, that there is no valid ,compelling state interest in preventing them from getting married, and that they are justified in demanding that they be treated the same as everyone else.

Many people are vehemently opposed to the idea of gay marriage for several reasons... none of which have to do with logic, which is the only thing I hold sacred. God... er... Darwin bless my graphing calculator, wherever it may be... damn law school. Anyway some of the major arguments presented by the Catholic church and conservatives across the land are the degridation of the sanctity of marriage, morality and reproductio/child rearing. I'll address each in turn.

I truly believe in the idea of marriage, though I have not taken any steps to progress toward that final destination because I naturally sabotage every relationship I have had. And curiously my ex-girlfriends have gotten engaged to the guy they date after me... am I Dane Cook in Good Luck Chuck? No, i'd rather tear off all my nails, eyelids and a few other body parts before being Dane Cook. But I digress. The Church and its sheep argue that it is a holy bond joining them for life, which I agree, Divorce is the devil, but straight people get divorced all the time so you can't argue that against the gays because there are gay couples that have stayed together for decades without any realistic expectation of becoming married one day. But I believe that they feel the name is holy as well. I have to say that I think the term marriage should be reserved to the ceremony that takes place in the church. However, I also believe that a long time ago all forms of government were controled by the church and there was too much intermingling going on, which made up common law, which dictated what many modern date statutes would look like. Thus the term marriage which was a completetly religious thing became all tied up with the government and subsequent rights that it bestowed. My proposal is that a new word be created to encompass all couples and bestow rights upon them and that marriage conveigh nothing other than recognition by the church. Let's use __________ to symbolize the new word. Marriage is gone, the church owns it, gay couples can try to petition the church to let them in but I see very little chance for success there. Seriously, everyone just go down to city hall for your __________ certificate and then you are legally bound and will receive all the same rights. The rules of monogamy still apply just so the system won't become entrenched with paper work. If they didn't then equal protection would fail as well a pair is not similarly situated to a trio.

Morality. Seriously? Because they have sex with someone of the same gender they are a bad person. I don't see the Boondock Saints going to kill Willem Dafoe, and they are the Right Hand of God. PS the sequel to Boondock Saints is slated to come out sometime this year... but what the hey it's only been 10 years... it's gotta be perfect by now. Scalia once compared homosexuality to people that rape barnyard animals.

Finally, reproduction/child rearing. Do you really think that just because gay people can't get married to each other that they will fight every natural feeling of theirs and marry a person of the opposite sex and what's more they will have a child. NO more or less children will be created whether or not gays marry. And I like to think, deep down, that if gay couples get married and can adopt, that some of them will adopt, as opposed to finding a surrogate. There are far too many children in "the system" and it screws a lot of them up for life. There is no data to prove that gay people would be any better/worse at raising children than a straight couple. Which is sad on the part of straight people because they have had so much more experience. And don't preach that... if they're raised by gay people they'll be gay garbage. Plenty of people raised by straight people nevertheless many who were later reveal the fact that they are gay and somehow the world hasn't come to an end.

In conclusion, to each their own. Stop bogarding equality, or I'll send the Somalian Pirates after you. PS how did California shoot down gay marriage? Are San Francisco and Hollywood not two of the gay meccas of the western hemisphere? FALE!

On a personal note... Congratulations to Scottery and his pending nuptials, to a WOMAN. Sorry Freducate, you missed your opportunity by only a few weeks.