Gay Marriage

Gay Marriage

So let's jump in.  Here's an easy target to rile people up emotionally.  How did we get here?  What does it all mean?

First we had to change the definition of marriage.  For years, it was commonly understood to represent a union between one man and one woman.  But if you use a word in a different context often enough, the definition changes.  Language is dynamic.  I am not entirely opposed to this.  I like the word smarky, a combination of smirk and smarmy.  It is the superior smile that makes you instantly hate a person who has a self satisfied demeanor, a face that you see on most MSNBC commentators. 

Next, we had to argue that marriage between homosexuals is essentially the same as heterosexual marriage.  That's like figuring out if two shapes are identical in pre school. Some are better at this than others. 

Thirdly, after leaping to the conclusion that there is really no difference, we argue we should give the benefits previously reserved to married heterosexuals to all marriage. Wait a minute! I pay for these benefits, and I want something in return, like social utility.  We've  gone a long time without homosexual marriage, and frankly I didn't notice. The natural consequence of heterosexual unions are little buggers that need care, education, and socialization.  I have an interest in fostering this union. So does society as a whole.  But what do I care about the personal relationship of two same sex partners?

Now you might argue that gay couples raise kids too.  And you have a point.  I am not opposed to figuring out something here.  But a childless gay couple should have no more right to assign social security benefits to a partner, than a single person to a family member or close friend. Discrimination!

Let's face it.  We wouldn't be talking about "gay marriage" if unions between same sex couples and straight couples were the same. There is a distinction.  If we want another institution called gay marriage or civil union, so be it.  But it is different and the rights and benefits should be separately constructed.

I think all this is obvious.  The real underlying issue is acceptance. But, this cannot be decreed by laws. Unless you change the definition of normal, or natural, the gay union lies outside of these bounds. But most of us probably have some traits, conditions, proclivities, that are "not normal" or usual.  We live with these and they are part of  us. I don't think the word proud applies to our feelings about these parts of our nature, but we can expect others to accept us.  I think that is reasonable.