For the Sake of Clarity

On the day when the people behind California's "Proposition 8" queer marriage amendment were recognized by the Court in California as having standing to sue to uphold that law, a brief discourse on the real question at hand: the English language. Words mean things.

Marriage: A man and a woman agree in the sight of godnevrybody to stay together for EVAR. The State recognizes their union and treats them more like family than like strangers. This has been the case since the beginning, when the first man married the first woman. Marriage is, by definition, between a man and his wife. Not and his dog, and not and his [deleted]-buddy. Marriage is not what it is called when you paint yourself purple with yellow polka-dots.

But people who had a bad relationship with their daddy and were subjected to government "education" are a little fuzzy on this. They want to be married, but they want to abuse themselves the one with the other in a way their bodies were not designed to be used. AND they want to call themselves "married." So there is a fuss over the term and the governmental reaction to the people to whom the term applies.

If you say your boyfriend and you deserve the same marriage rights as everyone else, I happily agree. However, there is a semantic difference. I, recognizing that words mean things and that "marry" means man+woman=family, and am happy to recognize your marriages . . . to women. You have the right just like every other MAN to marry a WOMAN. You do not have the right to call yourself "married" because you have painted yourself purple with yellow polka-dots. Just because you intend to stay purple your whole life, this does not mean you can be "married" because of your purpleness. Just because you intend to stay together for the rest of your lives, does not mean you can be "married" because of your buggery with your boyfriend. It is not possible for two men to be married, any more than it is possible for a man and the moon to make children together.

What you "feel" the word means is irrelevant. Words mean things, and two dudes does not make a married couple, regardless of how much you think you love and are committed to each other. Even if the State says so, you are still not "married."

But it is only the radicals who are fighting in the courts. Most of the queers you don't know you know just want to live their lives without economic disadvantage. A State-recognized Civil Union, with all the benefits attendant to marriage, would please most of them just fine. There is only one problem: the State has no business in this business. Unless we as a people are willing to state that queers are the equal of straights, morally, and that being together for sex and being together for family making are just as good as each other, the State has no business saying people of the same sex can be in recognized civil unions. Keep reading. Unless we as a people are willing to state that queers are morally inferior, and that family making is a worthy cause to support, the State also has no business in the marriage business.

Hold on there.

Yes, I just said the State should not give married persons special recognition and/or benefits. Not until there is an official recognition that marriage is superior for society than not-marriage.

Marriage is between a man and a woman. If they follow most of the worlds' traditions, it is one man and one woman, promising God and each other they will stay together until one of them dies. Taxes and real-estate deeds don't enter into the picture at ALL.

********
This, obviously, was directed at men wanting to be married to men. Change the sexes and the same arguments hold for wymyn also. And yes, there IS something wrong with it.