[McClain]

I've been watching a lot of news lately (it's become too easy to extract the humor in "Husband-Rapes-Wife" Lifetime shows) and there's a lot of hype about Proposition 8 in California. If you're not already aware, for the longest time gay people couldn't wed. In the year 2000 Proposition 22 legally prohibited same-sex marriage because a lot of gays were asking for their right to wed and those in power wanted to quell the gay's thirst for "dirty" sex.

Then in May 2008 the Supreme Court basically said*, "Hey, it's cool. Tie your knots, gay boys! And you women can tie… well, you can rub your knots since you don't have pricks and can't tie tits."

*Said in a more colloquial manner.

So for six glorious months married gay couples were actually recognized by the state of California. Veil stocks soared, penis-shaped party favors were sold out across the state (they'd already been sold out in San Francisco for years) and those 99 Californian right-wingers quickly sought shelter from the barrage of Matrimonious Mo's.

"Don't look at them Timmy! Avert your eyes! You might want to marry a man one day, too, lest you stare!"

It was a time of celebration for the gay community. Finally their constitutional rights were being recognized and the validation served as an inspiration not only to gays, but to any demographic that faced discrimination and prejudice.

But then, in a religion-fueled campaign that netted nearly $38 million, Californian voters at the November polls supported Proposition 8 which eliminated the gay's right to wed - and suddenly all those dirty gays with their dirty butt secks found their sin-soaked marriage certificates null.

The church had scraped up enough money for their campaign and with a swift palm to the forehead, rebuked the gay community. Proposition 8 also amended the state constitution to say, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

"We're safe now, Timmy! Those heathens aren't recognized by the State! Put a check in the box for Jesus!"
"But mom," cried Timmy. "They're still together. They're still gay. And once a constitutional amendment has been granted it can't be taken away. It's just that now they just don't have a piece of paper. How is that a moral victory? It doesn't change anything for you… other than you get to deny other human beings their rights."
At that, the mother chided her own kin with a swift bludgeon of the KJV, text messaged her pastor, and requested him to immediately exorcise the gay demons that infiltrated her son's puerile mind.
"OMG KK OMW" he responded.

So here we are now. People on both sides are pissed off. And it begs the question to those who oppose same-sex marriage: How does this affect you? Please answer this question without resorting to law; either our constitution or your religious decree.

Can you tell me how it will change your hetero lifestyle? Will your food taste different? Does it alter your shopping experience? Do you hate gays? Is it 4chan? Did brief exposure to 4chan gaymeme sway you this way? Was it that "What What In the Butt" music video?

I think most religious people are ignorant, but they deserve the right to be ignorant.

Have your religion! Wear your garb and drink the (grape-flavored) Blood of Christ! And the (Triscuity) Flesh of Jesus! Pray to an invisible being and adorn your immaculate marble-and-gold-leaf-encrusted temples of worship with the sadistic portrayal of a mythical man being hideously murdered! Do all this while people starve on the streets! GOGOGO! Collect money from your parishioners so your temple can have new oak pews and exotic felt-lined hand-crafted solid-brass communion trays!
...

You know what? I think The Church does some really wonderful things and some really shitty things. But I firmly believe in their right to conduct their ceremonies and exercise their beliefs in spite of my personal deliberations.

Isn't it in your nature to do the same? I know some of you religious folk are more progressive... But some still cling to the maxim of a 20th-century institution.

"God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!"

Oh really? Pray tell, did God intend for males to fuck their mothers? Because unless Cain or Abel railed Eve for the sake of posterity, I don't see how that homogeneous scenario transcends beyond two generations.
___________________

I have children and I don't want them to be gay. But not because I disagree with the lifestyle - I don't want my children to be gay because of ignorance toward sexual orientation. I don't wish upon my child to be treated unfairly. Gays aren't treated fairly. They're not afforded the same opportunities as "traditional" couples. And while I fall under the male demographic that thinks lesbianism is cool and gay men acts are typically gross (though if I had to blow a dude it would probably be Ryan Reynolds) I still feel that gays deserve the full benefits of our constitution.

"Our Bill of Rights make no mention of allowing homosexuals to marry each other!"

News Flash: In its inception it made no mention of only permitting a man and woman to wed each other, but was amended at the behest of religious zealots.

And so-effin'-what if our founding fathers didn't intend for those rights to extend to homosexuals? What, like they were perfect angels? Yes, their idealism is the functional premise for this democracy, however, their personal views should be considered postscript. Those men had fucken slaves, man! SLAVES! Man.

"I don't agree with homosexual marriage because it ruins the sanctity of marriage!"

But what is "sanctity" if it isn't a fundamental form of exclusivity? All it means is that something is spiritual, holy. Why can't gays have sanctity? Would Jesus deny a gay person? People who use this argument essentially believe in the Christian sanctity of marriage. Which is fine. But it's reinforcing the belief that federal-recognized matrimony is a right exclusive solely to heterosexuals. The "sanctity" of marriage = the exclusive right of Christian heterosexuals to wed. It isn't and shouldn't be available to anyone of different sexual orientation by this line of thinking.

Do Jews believe in the sanctity of marriage? How about those of Muslim faith? The fact is they do. But this country wasn't founded on their views. This ideal is not inherently Christian. (Just goes to show that while religions can't agree on a personal savior, bias toward orientation indeed crosses denominational and theological boundaries.)

"We should provide gays an institution of union that doesn't tread on the 'sanctity' of marriage!"

How?

SEMANTICS!

Instead of using the religious term "marriage" they can have "Civil Unions". They get the same state recognition and partner benefits they deserve without sullying the church's ideal. The paperwork is filed in the same manner.

"But wait... Hasn't this been done already?"

Yes, it has!

And it was SHOT DOWN by the religious rite. Virginia tried their hand at Civil Unions in the late 90s and and they were crushed. They even strayed from the "married" verbiage to widen the gap for the sake of religion and it's overtly sensitive drones.

There's really only one way to do this; let same-sex partners get "married". I promise, it won't cheapen your marriage at all. If this were to be suddenly amended you won't open your front door only to see your wife looking at you in disgust.