What are my views on gay marriage? Here's a controversial topic that I never really did get around to throwing my two bits into the ring about, before. I always kind of meant to put my opinion out there, but never got around to it, when it was hot. Here goes, now, though.
Let me begin by addressing something that is highly related but not exactly gay marriage: marriage, in general, and its role in society. Nobody would be wrong to ever say that marriage was a religious ceremony and sanctified by the church, or any Church, for that matter . . . Many religions and cultures have varying versions of marriage, by differing names, usually. There is nothing political nor is there anything economical about it. Marriage isn't even really a social thing, so much as it has been, since the onset of the practice, been a purely religious one. Granted, society and religion in the world's history has been so interwoven into each other, in places, that it's difficult to distinguish differences.
So, what happened to that, is my question. Where did people decide to allow the government to regulate and pass laws regarding marriage? When did it go from being under the jurisdiction of the religions, to the jurisdiction of the government? If you don't realise that it has, in fact, transferred hands, look at how one goes about getting married, now. What's one of the first steps? Marriage licenses, which are obtained at city government buildings. Only then, after you have qualified and paid for a license, can you consult a priest or rabbi, pastor or reverend, or what have you, and go out and get hitched. The fuck is that? When did it become the same process to get engaged in Holy matrimony as it is to become eligible to purchase a gun? Ridiculous, I say.
I mean, think about it: you have to confer with the government to ascertain permission to be issued a piece of otherwise-meaningless paper that allows you to visit a third-party, private institution that deals in the wares you now have the right to own. What I really want to know is when this became acceptable and unquestioned?
Okay, so some people would say, I'm sure, that you can get married without the consent of the government, but it is not legally recognised in any form. Well, for one thing, why the hell are there legal ramifications for undergoing a religious practice, I query you, again. But, beside that point, I would nod and agree. "You're right," I would respond, "Somehow, it's the right thing for people to be more concerned with the block of the tax forms they check or the type of bank account they have, than with the romantic and, apparently, frivolous notion that marriage symbolises everlasting love or whatever."
Marriage is a convenience in this modern day and age. It allows you to file your April 15th Tax Forms jointly, it allows you legally co-own property, and it grants you certain privileges within economic and social circles. I call bullshit on this, too. Is this really what marriage is about to you people? Taxes and material possession? How retarded and superficial can we be, as a race?
I have somewhat digressed away from the original point, though, and now I will go back to concerning myself with the act of the marriage of homosexuals. Bush was putting his backing behind a proposed Constitutional amendment that would define and, thus, restrict marriage to the holy wedlock of a man and a woman: a pair of opposing gender, solely. What? When did it become kosher for the government, in any shape, form, or fashion, to direct the actions of priests and clergymen? What right-thinking American would, in good health, believe that an amendment to the Constitution to prohibit religions from engaging in a ritual is sensible? That notion breaks the First Amendment so many ways to Sunday that I don't thinkit'd be able to take a train and find its way back.
Was there, somewhere, I ask, that gay people were coercing ordained ministers into marrying them? Did the issuing of licenses to homosexual couples in New Mexico immediately lead to raging, angry lesbians holding shotguns to priests' heads while they recited the rite of joining? Did thin-lipped and effeminate men ambush black-and-white-collared, robe-wearing citizens in the streets of San Francisco and brutally push them into an alley, where a huge cake and hordes of relatives awaited the wedding? And let me get away from expounding on this, further, before I get carried away with the amusement of such images . . . In other words, who would this Amendment be protecting? Was there someone being victimised by gay marriage, other than those who were ideologically insulted and indignified simply by association of titles? Did the existence of Mr. and Mr. Jones, the gay husbands down the street, kill kittens or burn babies in their sleep or something?
Let me clarify one point, real quick, here, in the face of possible reproach to the previous two paragraphs: judges ignoring the higher authority of their own hierarchy of power is not something I condone. Legitimate avenues for the legislation of gay marriage exist, and should be persued — not hasty, adolescent acts of rebellion. Instead of just petulantly continuing to issue licenses, they should've started debating the nature of the penal code they were using to justify the handing-out of such licenses, in the first place; instead, they just kept going and it started ringing of, "Oh, shit, we've been busted by the Cops, better do as much damage as possible before they break down the door." Foolishness.
Does it somehow tarnish the sanctimony of marriage by allowing gay people to do it, too? In a way, I could see it; what would happen is that various sects of Christianity would condemn and damn other sects of Christianity for allowing it, and you'd get further segmentation among the Christians. But, surprise, Christian churches engaging in political maneuvering and games of stigma? Paint me Shocked and call me Blind.
If ministers want to marry gay people, and the dogma of the church they belong to does not disavow such a thing, and the church doesn't mind, and nobody is hurt except the stupid egotists who sit outside the gates and yell "Boo," then there is absolutely no reason why it should not go forth. And there is absolutely no reason why it should not be recognised as a legitimate marriage, either. There is nothing wrong with it, and it hurts nobody, except for the self-centered and egotistical idiots who take up the arms of "moral outrage," in the name of their flawed and ignorant exclusivity. These people can go rot, for all I care, because they're doing nothing but propagating their personal ideas on the grounds of social status and etiquette, not wanting to be the ones to go, "Hey, isn't it kind of pointless to forbid them from marrying," and receive the dirty looks and eye-daggers in the backs. It is the agenda of a Church to do as the Church deems right, not to follow the dictum of a bigoted congregation.
A lot of times, those who wish to disagree with gay marriage but are too cowardly to be open in their narrow-minded thinking will say, "Well, it's all semantics, really, and they could just get civil unions." Oh, that's odd, because I do recall that those aren't legal or recognised, either, nor do any conservatives or Republicans have any plans to allow that any time soon. Sure, Bush may have tried to pitifully cover his wasp-ass by saying, "Oh, uh, er, eh, uh, er, no, they could, uh, er, uh, er, eh, uh get civil unions, they just, uh, yeah, uh, er, eh, ah, yeah, wouldn't be called marriages." That's quite strange, Mr. President, since I see no sign of an initiative to allow any kind of civil union to be made nationally available to homosexuals. I don't see anyone, you or anybody around you, rallying to see this begin, either . . . Sounds like you're just raking candy-smelling flowers over your thick coating of horseshit on the ground, to me, but maybe that's just me.
Tell me, please, what makes it wrong for a priest to volunteer to marry two people who are of the same gender, but right for a priest to marry a drunken man and a bruised, drugged-up blonde in Las Vegas. Yes, because they are definitely preserving the Holy Sanctimony of Matrimony that way, by letting a teenage couple, including a pregnant 15-year-old and a wide-eyed, naivé boy, get married before the Holy Eyes of God. There's certainly moral decency to be found within the circles of Hollywood marriages that flash in the pan and Beverley Hills weddings of gold-plated cash, too. Gasp, what would the institution of marriage do without the assistance of the great, smiling government, protecting it from the blemish that homosexual marriages would be upon it: a mark of ugliness that would certainly spoil a perfectly innocent practice.
Also, I am going to dismiss that argument that goes something like, "The point of marriage is to have babies, and gay people can't have babies," because there's nowhere in a heterosexual marriage that the priest goes, "You two better have three kids by your third anniversary, or we're gonna huntcha down and annul the marriage!" Also, is there anything stopping barren women or sterile men from marrying? No, stupid.
I think I have sufficiently fumed out all of my opinion, here, and going any further would be redundant. Conclusion: when a man has anal sex with his wife, I don't see God smiting him with lightning bolts and storms of frogs the next day, do I?

Adios.