Marriage is Dead, Long Live Marriage

As the bell tolls midnight, MTV News is currently on the steps of city hall in Massachusetts (I'm guessing Boston, but couldn't it have happened in an easier state to spell?) where same-sex couples are lined up to get married, this time legally and with full support of the US Supreme Court. Why the city hall gets special hours is beyond me, I mean fo fuck's sake, they could at least wait until 7am, but then if I a)had a boyfriend/girlfriend with whom I'd want to spend the rest of my life with, until finances do us part, and b) even supported the institution of marriage, this would be my only chance to get a marriage license, due to the hours that the city hall is open.

I digress. Gay marriage is a hot topic, and one that I've explored on this journal several times over. I've explored it always from a pro-gay marriage stance, and always critical of both the institution itself, but the religious reasons for getting married. The legal benefits of marriage denied to civil unions are impossible to overlook.

As most of you know, I am against marriage of any kind. I don't want to get married, I don't want to be legally tied to a person on top of being emotionally attached, and I certainly don't want to be tied through religion (especially considering my agnosticism). The only good thing marriage has going for it are the benefits that the federal and state governments offer to married couples, but lets take a look at why there are so many mehods opponents use against gay marriage, and why some of them are easier to dismiss than others.

The first group I want to look at is the religious sects. You know whom I am talking about, the groups that believe in God and Jesus Christ or whoever the fuck else they believe in, pay their churches/synagogues/temples/whatever money to worship there, and various other psychotically devout things. These are the people who support cardinals and priests who deny sacraments not only to the lawmakers who support legalized abortion laws, but also deny the people who vote for these lawmakers. These people are easy to dismiss and hard to ignore because of their influence over the religious lawmakers who actually buy into this crap. The problem with these people is that you can write them off with "there has to be a seperation of church and state" but the religious influence over the stupid and smart is hard to ignore, even if they agree. Everything has an influence, and many people think with their heart and not with their head. (note: Michael Moore was spouting against one of the original DNC presidential candidates because he said that he was against abortions but would not pass laws to make it illegal, and said that he had to believe that abortions were OK too...Moore is a jackass)

The second group are those that say marriage is an ancient institution that should remain the same. Well, I know I'm sounding extremely liberal, but FUCK YOU. Things change. If things didn't change, women would still be "obeying" their husbands like they do according to the Koran in mulsim cultures. Women would still be servants, and very seperate from husbands. Women's place would still be in the kitchen, if she was married. It's easiest to dismiss because its just people longing for the ways of old.

The third group are those that say marriage is for making babies and populating the nation. Well, enough people have out-of-wedlock babies now. And, lets look at the heterogamous but childless couples who can't have babies. The ones with barren wives, sterile husbands, or even physical disabilities or mental illnesses which make sex impossible. Not only that, there are plenty of benefits just for having children that the benefits of marriage have nothing to do with it anymore. It is still the middle difficulty concept to dismiss. Part of the reason for the benefits was so people who got married wanted to stay married, and it was harder for the father or mother to dump the family that he/she was creating. And, it is still beneficial in these terms, but many of the benefits also have nothing to do with family or children, but just the benefits of legal couples. This includes, but is not limited to, visitation rights and health insurance taxation. If we got rid of these benefits for marriage, or every single right was associated with civil unions as equally as marriage, then we would have no problem.

That, in turn, brings us to the fourth mehtod. Those that are willing to give gays civil unions, which is supposed to have every single right that marriage has. The issue and problem with civil unions is that there are many benefits that are given to marriages that are not applied to other types of unions. This is also troublesome in the concept of health insurance given by companies to people and their spouses. It is hard to argue the idea that civil unions are seperate but not equal, especially with people who aren't familiar with the differences that exist between the two.

Nevertheless, marriage is now, at this point of time, not a religious institution anymore. That was eliminated long ago when the first American laws were made dealing with marriage. Marriage is now a legal institution, and legal institutions change, whether you like them or not. In 1968, interracial marriages were illegal, and 72% believed it was wrong.

That being said, as always, I am still against the methods which the gay activists have used, and the channels gone through, to get this far in legalization of gay marriage. There was not a public debate. There is not even close to a majority agreeing to the concept of gay marriage. However, as Bush himself said, this is America, and we don't need the permission of the world to do what we want. I believe he also made some comment regarding political policies should not be dictated by popular opinion. I also have to argue, there could not have been that big of a public debate during the civil rights time either. They had to push their agendas ahead despite the moral objections which white supremacists, as well as racial bigots, possessed.

Still, this is a step in the right direction. There will be no delusions in this mind that, just as some people still regard interracial marriages as wrong, there will always be a group who are against gay marriages, and homosexuality in general. The difference will be the number against the marriages will hopefully dwindle to just being an annoying buzz, like the ones against interracial marriages. On the MTV show I do, but I can't there was a guy from one of those groups with Family in their name, who essentially said "Its clear that marriage is the end for the gay agenda, and that is why I am against it." Which is virtually impossible to argue with because of the brute cruelty and aggression involved in what he was saying, and he probably won't change his mind.

Still, I'll leave you with two quotes:
John Waters - "I remember when being gay meant that your mother didn't nag you about when you were getting married."
Scott Thompson as Buddy Waters - "Gays shouldn't be getting married. I mean, the world hates us, why ruin a good thing?"