Goddammit, I'm Sick Of This. You're Missing The Fucking Point.

Let me give you - ALL of you - a history lesson that a hell of a lot of you seem to have missed.

See, back in the day, the Founders fought the Revolutionary War, broke with their legally designated government, and established a new nation, based on three simple causes.

Unfair taxation.

Lack of self-governance and representation.

AND, GODDAMIT, RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION.

I am fucking exhausted with hearing people spout this incredible bullshit about how "separation of church and state doesn't mean this is not a Christian nation."

YES, IT FUCKING WELL DOES.

See, the Founders came over here in large part because THE LAW in England was that you would attend the Church of England, and if you didn't like that, there were legal consequences. They FOUGHT A FUCKING WAR to defend their right to worship - OR NOT - based on THEIR OWN PERSONAL CONVICTIONS.

Now, there's an issue that keeps ON and ON and ON coming up, as though there were any legitimate basis for argument about it.

So, knowing full well that this article will piss people off, and offend people - a fact about which, frankly, I don't give a fuck, because I'm tired of the retardedness here - I'm going to lay it to rest.

Just recently, in California, "the people" voted for a ban on gay people getting married. And some judges overthrew it.

I have heard a TORRENT of screeching about this, how the judges "broke with the Constitution," blah blah blah.

No. The judges were wrong, and I will explain why: because AT THE STATE LEVEL, that law can exist. The Constitution forbids that kind of thing - YES, IT DOES, AND I WILL GET TO THAT - but only at the federal level. It says NOTHING about the state level; for that reason, the law should have stood.

Now. The First Amendment to the Constitution reads, in part, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

There are two interpretations of this.

Either, as it seems clear from the history of this nation, the Founders intended to ensure that there could NEVER be an official "state religion," so that the citizens of their new nation would NEVER suffer from the kind of religious persecution that drove them to flee, in wooden ships, across thousands of miles of ocean to a new continent; OR, they intended to make sure that religion should forever remain unregulated in this country.

Here's the problem. If you honestly believe that definition number two is what the Founders intended, then MARRIAGE AS A LEGAL STATUS IN THIS COUNTRY CANNOT EXIST, PERIOD. Why? Because to define "marriage" regulates the ceremonies religions in this country can perform, thus violating the First Amendment.

The first definition - the RIGHT definition - is more interesting. See, there IS no definition in the Constitution of "marriage." Want to know why? Because the Founders knew that - REGARDLESS of their personal convictions (something people today, obviously, aren't able to ignore when making legal decisions) - to define marriage, in the law of the land, in concert with the requirements of ANY single religion is a DE FACTO DECLARATION OF THAT RELIGION AS THE STATE RELIGION.

And considering they just fought a war to escape just that very exact thing, they weren't ABOUT to let that happen again.

See, "marriage" is really two separate words, in this country. Consider them homonyms; they sound alike - and are even spelled alike - but mean two completely different things. Under the Christian religion - at least, most denominations of it - marriage is a religious sacrament, specifically defined as uniting a man and woman. As a religious sacrament, THIS DEFINITION CAN NEVER BE LAW.

As a legal status, however, it carries benefits; tax credits, power of attorney, inheritance rights, parental and property rights; and it is defined - nowhere. The reason for this is that the law CANNOT define it as a religious sacrament; it is SPECIFICALLY un-Constitutional, REGARDLESS of the definition of "separation of church and state" you believe.

Now, HAD THE LAW IN CALIFORNIA BEEN A FEDERAL LAW INSTEAD, the judges there would have been 100% right.

But it wasn't; California can pass that law, because it's NOT a federal law. And thus, the judges were wrong.

But in reality, attempting to encode a religious definition of a legal status into law, specifically to exclude someone from enjoying its benefits, is naked discrimination, and should be utterly repulsive to ANY of you.

I've heard some people offer the really, really dumb argument that if gay people can get married, why then you could marry a CAT. Or a TREE. Or your CAR. And then SOCIETY WOULD COLLAPSE, OH NOES!!!1!

Would someone care to explain to me how a gay person is different from a tree, or a cat?

Never mind; I will take care of that. They're not the same, because GAY PEOPLE ARE STILL PEOPLE. Even if you don't approve of their bedroom activities, which frankly is none of your goddamned business unless they're doing it on your fucking rug, that DOES NOT MAKE THEM INANIMATE OBJECTS.

It does not make them less human.

Take heed: the argument you make, when you cry out for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage in accordance with your religion, is that your discrimination against peoiple who have done nothing to you, is more important than one of the primary freedoms in this country; a freedom so profoundly important, so crucial to a free nation, that the Founders DID THAT FIRST.

You're choosing your personal bias against someone's bedroom behavior over our national religious freedom.

You have every right to shun gay people yourself, personally. In fact, you have every right to refuse to perform weddings for them, even in states where it's legal; you have a right to refuse to allow them even to enter your church at all.

But you don't, and never will, have a right to tell them they can't do it at all.

See, the underlying principle - the most fundamental element, at the core of ALL our rights - is that IF IT HARMS NO-ONE, ADULT HUMANS BEINGS ARE FREE TO DO WHATEVER THE FUCK THEY WANT.

You're perfectly within your rights to tell gay people they can't fuck on your rug. I would totally have them arrested if they came into my apartment and started screwing in my living room. BUT IT IS NONE OF YOUR GODDAMN BUSINESS what they do at home. And you have no right to exclude them from a legal status whose benefits you enjoy, period.

You want to do it right? Hmmmmmm? Want to indulge your prejudice - and that IS what it is - with impunity?

Pass a law creating a legal status of "domestic partnership" that has EXACTLY the same legal benefits as marriage.

At that point, you can freely consider anyone agitating for "marriage" to be simply trolling, because they're pushing - at that point - for a forcible entry into your religion, and they don't have a right to do that, because of exactly the same line in the Constitution that makes it impossible for you to outlaw it.

But until, and as long as, domestic partnerships DON'T have the same legal benefits, responsibilities, and requirements - INCLUDING divorce law, unfortunately - as marriage, any attempt to prevent gay people from getting married is religious and legal discrimination, and you can't do it. Period.