One can only imagine what occurred behind closed doors on their wedding night.
Yesterday, January 16th, 2008, California hosted a gay party.
The extravaganza was quite like a college blowout (meaning rager/fiesta/pahty/kegger/etc., not this). The threat of legal recourse clouded the atmosphere like Purple Haze, drunken threats flew through the air like ping pong balls, usually missing their targets, and in the end, everyone just wanted someone to make out with.
To stop being coy and relay some facts, this really was a banner day for human rights. Unfortunately, the banner could go up in flames like America's credibility lately.
California's courts, perhaps only temporarily, allowed for the union of same-sex marriages to count as, umm, marriages. The funny thing is, the debate seems to be based on semantics, not whether or not two consenting adults can do whatever the hell they want to each other behind closed doors, according to Matthew D. Staver, founder and chairman of an anti-civil rights group errantly named the Liberty Counsel (source: NYT article linked above):
“Marriage has traditionally been known, across continents and all geographical regions, as between a man and a woman,” said Mr. Staver, who is 51 and married [presumably to someone who, in fact, looks like a man]. “Marriage between the same sex may be some sort of union, but it’s certainly not marriage.”
Hmm. First of all, I would like to know if Mr. Staver is a Los Angeles Lakers fan, and in turn a Kobe Bryant fan, and in turn a fan of sodomistic rape of women. But I digress. Anyways, here's a nice little list of definitions of the word marriage.
Now there are 10 definitions on the linked list, and quoting a dictionary definition an argument does not make, but let's just have at this for fun.
My favorite is unequivocally number 10: "Obsolete. the formal declaration or contract by which act a man and a woman join in wedlock."
The very definition of marriage merely meaning man and woman is listed as obsolete. Quite telling if you ask me.
Next, let's look at number 5: "any close or intimate association or union." Note the use of Mr. Staver's favorite word: "union."
And lastly, since this tactic is probably getting old, number 2: "the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock."
Same-sex marriage certainly qualifies under the above definitions, and also seems better than this "obsolete formal declaration" thing that meant the husband owned his woman, and could do as he pleased with/to her until the arrival of her merciful death. (Sounds sort of like slavery doesn't it?)
Anyway, if Mr. Staver and his hate mongers want teach their children to hate gay lovers and gay-lovers alike, which might include themselves, and live unfulfilling lives in unhappy marriages, that's their problem. But, please, don't force your definition of life, one you probably mistakenly took from a really Good Book, on the rest of us.
Here's hoping the morality cops don't bust down the door on this innocuous little gathering they've got going on out in the Governator's Crib.
Yesterday, January 16th, 2008, California hosted a gay party.
The extravaganza was quite like a college blowout (meaning rager/fiesta/pahty/kegger/etc., not this). The threat of legal recourse clouded the atmosphere like Purple Haze, drunken threats flew through the air like ping pong balls, usually missing their targets, and in the end, everyone just wanted someone to make out with.
To stop being coy and relay some facts, this really was a banner day for human rights. Unfortunately, the banner could go up in flames like America's credibility lately.
California's courts, perhaps only temporarily, allowed for the union of same-sex marriages to count as, umm, marriages. The funny thing is, the debate seems to be based on semantics, not whether or not two consenting adults can do whatever the hell they want to each other behind closed doors, according to Matthew D. Staver, founder and chairman of an anti-civil rights group errantly named the Liberty Counsel (source: NYT article linked above):
“Marriage has traditionally been known, across continents and all geographical regions, as between a man and a woman,” said Mr. Staver, who is 51 and married [presumably to someone who, in fact, looks like a man]. “Marriage between the same sex may be some sort of union, but it’s certainly not marriage.”
Hmm. First of all, I would like to know if Mr. Staver is a Los Angeles Lakers fan, and in turn a Kobe Bryant fan, and in turn a fan of sodomistic rape of women. But I digress. Anyways, here's a nice little list of definitions of the word marriage.
Now there are 10 definitions on the linked list, and quoting a dictionary definition an argument does not make, but let's just have at this for fun.
My favorite is unequivocally number 10: "Obsolete. the formal declaration or contract by which act a man and a woman join in wedlock."
The very definition of marriage merely meaning man and woman is listed as obsolete. Quite telling if you ask me.
Next, let's look at number 5: "any close or intimate association or union." Note the use of Mr. Staver's favorite word: "union."
And lastly, since this tactic is probably getting old, number 2: "the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock."
Same-sex marriage certainly qualifies under the above definitions, and also seems better than this "obsolete formal declaration" thing that meant the husband owned his woman, and could do as he pleased with/to her until the arrival of her merciful death. (Sounds sort of like slavery doesn't it?)
Anyway, if Mr. Staver and his hate mongers want teach their children to hate gay lovers and gay-lovers alike, which might include themselves, and live unfulfilling lives in unhappy marriages, that's their problem. But, please, don't force your definition of life, one you probably mistakenly took from a really Good Book, on the rest of us.
Here's hoping the morality cops don't bust down the door on this innocuous little gathering they've got going on out in the Governator's Crib.
Posts
1 comment:
I love when people say that marriage is universally understood as between a man and a woman. Apparently these people never took an anthropology course in college. Yes, I know, we all just live in a Christain utopia where we (and that includes gay people because after all with just a little therapy gays can become straight too!)marry for love.
Wake up! Read something, watch the damn Discovery Channel for christ's sake.
There are so many different forms of "unions" or marriages throughout the world that it makes it nearly impossible to actually try to even define the term "marriage."
But just to comfort those who choose to ignore the blatantly obvious facts, I repeat-we live in a Christian world, marriage is only between man and woman, and yes "missionary" is the only position.
Post a Comment