THE OBLIGATORY GAY MARRIAGE POST!!!1! OMGWTF!!1!

OK.



Before everybody gets their panties in a bunch, let's look at the issue, shall we?



On the one side, we have homosexuals of both genders who want the same legal and financial benefits granted to married heterosexuals.



On the other, you have adherents of a particular religion arguing that since homosexuality is against their religion, and marriage is a sacrament OF that religion, homosexuals should not be allowed to marry, as it's blasphemous.



Here's the trick: both sides are right.



And the state of the law is wrong.



*PAUSE FOR SCREAMING*



Ok. Wanna hear why?



Here goes anyway. (And if you don't like it, say so on your blog. Or, by all means, in my comments section. And then, go fuck yourself.)



The United States has a Constitution. That document exists to define what constitutes acceptable behavior for our government, and its citizens. It specifically protects us from the establishment of a State religion; more to the point, it says that " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"  - incidentally, that's the FIRST Amendment - which means that Congress has no right to tell us what to believe or how to go about it. Sadly, our forefathers were not Miss Cleo; they were unable to foresee a situation in which we would be mentally incapable of separating a religious ceremony from the legal concept of domestic union.



So, I'll fix it for you.



Ready?



The homosexuals are exactly right. Providing legal and financial benefit to one group and refusing others is the very definition of discrimination. However, the Christians are exactly right as well: marriage is a religious ceremony.



The government has no right to make a law about MARRIAGE at all; it is a religious issue, and marital status should not be a question on any government document anywhere, ever, because using that as a qualifier presumes belief in Christian doctrine, which isn't acceptable according to the previously quoted establishment clause.



(Marriage in other religions is often quite different from the Christian version, and in practice in the US the monogamous Christian practice is the standard. Polygamy (Mormon and Muslim,) concubinage (various religions) and polyandry are all considered unrecognized forms of domestic partnership.)



And that, right there, is the problem in a nutshell. There needs to be some recognized form of domestic partnership; that relationship needs to be the law; and it should be open for any adults, of any orientation, past the age of consent.



It shouldn't be "marriage," because that's a religious ceremony, and that sort of thing is precisely against the Constitution. It should be a wholly secular partnership recognized by the government, but religion should not enter into it whatsoever. For example, if you were to get "partnered" but not "married," in the eyes of the law the partnership should remain of equal value, despite the lack of religious attachment.



Gays SHOULDN'T be married. But MARRIED people shouldn't get benefits, either legal or financial, from a religious ceremony, either.



Logic therefore requires establishment of a secular domestic partnership law, which allows the same benefits for all who file for its recognition, regardless of any other factors.



That's what this country needs: a LAW that says someone is your Significant Other.



Because God knows, we don't have the goddamn good sense to shut up about this and quit taking the state-sanctioned marriage as being equivalent to the Christian sacramental ceremony; we have to have our fucking hands held these days in every tiny thing we do.



SO: we could rewrite every document the government's ever produced, overturn centuries of tradition, hire thousands of new bureaucrats, and get all worked up into a blizzard of paperwork over something really unnecessary - or we can think (with our brains) that maybe it's ok to call it marriage, because EVERY RELIGION CALLS IT MARRIAGE OR SOMETHING SIMILAR, and realize that a state-sanctioned union isn't blasphemous, regardless of its participants, because it is inherently secular, and doesn't affect you religious jugheads.



I think we'd be better off getting our heads out of our asses about this, and shutting the hell up about it. What, precisely, is the real objection? Does gay marriage mean they're going to screw in your living room, on the carpet? No? Then shut the fuck up.