Let's Never Marry A Gay against Gay Marriage Dearly Beloved, We are gathered here today to celebrate the union of Love and Law as expressed by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. How glorious is the Divine Creator who looks down upon these two anthropomorphizations this magical day and says unto them, "Lo! May mankind legislate every emotion under the sun!" If any of you know of any reason why these two should not be joined in holy matrimony, speak now or forever hold your peace. Um- hi there. Marriage is a sacred institution that is defined as being between a man and a woman. I'm no Jerry Falwell loving, self-hating fag, but really, that's what marriage is. From Biblical times up until today, marriage has always been there for the hets and really, it's on their home turf. The straights invented marriage. Imagine if, all of the sudden, the NBA decided to make Judy Garland their official mascot. Get the drift? I'm all for inclusiveness, but if homosexuals want their culture and lifestyle accepted, then they have to respect the heterosexual culture; a culture for which marriage is their yellow brick road and Oz all rolled into one. Marriage is religious. The less our presidents and our priests snuggle up to one another, the better. The question of who can marry whom is one that individual churches should be left to decide. It is the governments job to afford all of its citizens equal protection under the law. In that respect, civil unions are a must for any two consenting adults. They must be given the same essential privledges in regards to healthcare, property and custody as any traditional married couple, but I see no reason why the government is obliged to marry anyone. Those supporting a constitutional amendment to define what marriage is are frankly, idiots or political grandstanders. It's unlikely that Americans would stand for what would ultimately be a Gay Dredd Scott Decision. The wiser move is to support an amendment that would recognize that the sanctity of marriage is one conferred upon by God, and as such is not under the domain of the State. The amendment should then go on to define a civil union and what it's rights and protections are. I may get accused of being a turncoat here, but before you get you start pelting me with your fish taco bridal bouquets, here me out. I'm all for marriage. It's a beautiful wonderful thing when two people, of any gender, decide to commit before the world their love and devotion to each other, however, the ritual of marriage is more than that. Why should gay men and women take on the baggage of an institution that has never been their own, and more importantly, why does the state need to be involved? I don't need the State to tell me who I love, nor do I need its permission to declare that love publicly. What I require of the State is that it provide me the same privledges it admits to heterosexual couples- no more and no less.

posted by Japhy at 11/18/2003 05:46:00 PM || #