The whole gay marriage thing

This week, the California Supreme Court made a big splash by striking down their ban on gay marriage. The court based the decision on a similar case from sixty years ago that overturned a ban on interracial marriage.

I disagree with the court's decision.

That's correct. The reason is very simple: words. They are slippery, seldom used properly, and oh so rife with potential for misinterpretation. But in this case, my argument revolves around the word "marriage." What does this word mean? To each individual as well as to society?

Well, when I think of marriage, I think of a spiritual bond between two people. There really is no motivation, other than a psychological one (in my opinion "psychological" includes a "spiritual" desire), for two individuals to get hitched. I suppose it has to do with having your bond recognized by a higher authority. That authority could be the state (through a civil union) or God (through a religious ceremony) -- obviously, this is up to the individuals involved. I don't think it's at all out of line to say that the institution of marriage lies in a spiritual realm, not a legal one. This is my argument.

The state has no business saying which kinds of marriages are acceptable and which ones are not because it is constitutionally precluded from making laws regarding religious matters. The government has no more authority to tell a church that it can (or cannot) marry homosexuals than it does to mandate that nuns wear tie-dye.

On the one hand, I am glad that states are striking down these absurd laws, but on the other hand, this is all a very dangerous semantic dance. Now, I admit I am no lawyer... but if I were a Bible-thumping pinhead lawyer working for one of these thinly-veiled anti-homosexual hate groups, I would challenge this ruling on the basis that government has no authority to regulate spiritual institutions -- namely, marriage.

I am much more comfortable with the whole notion of "civil unions." I propose that all government legislation, statutes, and tax code change the word "marriage" to "union." That term is religiously sterile, and thus constitutionally appropriate for use by government entities.

More than that, though, excising the word "marriage" from government language would deflate a lot of the arguments made by trailer-trash social conservatives. Why are people not-okay with the notion of gay marriage? Well, mostly outright bigotry, but you can't say that on CNN, now can you? So, they all make the oh-so appealing argument that recognizing gay "marriage" disregards "the entire history and meaning of marriage in our tradition." A direct quote, mind you, from the president of the National Organization for Marriage (referenced in the above-linked article). So, what to do, what to do?

I'll tell you... you remove that argument entirely! If the government changes everything to "union," anti-homosexual advocates can't say the government is redefining a traditional institution. What the fuck kind of precedent is there for the word "union?" It doesn't have that same religious tag attached to it the way marriage does. When people hear the word "marriage," they think church, flowers, preacher, etc. etc., and seeing some gay dudes getting married in a church bothers some people. What do they think of when they hear "union?" Any number of things, but it doesn't have a religious connotation.

Get rid of "marriage" in government language, and what reason do these troglodytic hillbillies have LEFT for opposing gay unions? The way I see it, there are two: money or outright bigotry. Money because united gay couples theoretically get the same tax benefits as heterosexual couples, and that pisses some people off. Bigotry because some people are just so profoundly unintellectual and so obtrusively meddlesome that they can't help themselves. And none of those motivations makes for good sound bites on CNN.

The courts across the country need to stop this before it gets out of hand. Stop using the word "marriage" and we'll all get a chance to see what these "noble" Christians* are really after in their crusade against homosexuals: blood or money. Even if judges aren't as keen as exposing these reactionaries as I am, at least do the Constitution some justice and get government out of the many realms in which it does not belong.

----------------------------

*Please note the use of "these 'noble' Christians." This does not imply that all Christians are anti-homosexual. I am casting aspersions specifically at those that will do anything to vilify homosexuals.