Crazy Talk

I guess I should weigh in on this gay marriage business since it could change the face of this nation and all.
Personally, I have always thought of marriage as another tax scam to keep people dependant on the state.
I know couples love each other and all that, but when I hear couples talk about possibly getting married, it isn’t long until I hear, “The tax break will be nice.”
I have never figured out why love just can’t be love. Why do people need a government document (marriage certificate) confirming their feelings toward one another?
Furthermore, why do we need to get permission from the government (marriage license) to marry the person we are in love with?
Would the marriage be any less valid if my partner and I were married by anyone other than a preacher or a judge?
In the eyes of the state, yes, the marriage is not valid unless performed by an agent of the state (which includes priests and pastors.)
So why does the couple need the state to recognize their marriage? The love and respect are still going to be there. The ceremony is still going to be beautiful. The cake will still be good. The band will still play “The Macarena.” Everything is the same except one thing. The newly married couple won’t get the tax break. It’s a scam, I tell you.

Which brings me to gay marriage. It’s not an issue I pay too much attention to because of my general feeling toward (state-approved) marriage.
I had always thought gays wanted to be married so they could get those tax breaks that married people get. I figured that makes sense. They’re Americans, they were born free, they should have the right to enter a marriage contract with whom they choose and get those tax breaks if they so desired.
Then I’m told that there’s such a thing as a civil-union contract, which extends the same benefits and protections to gay couples as a marriage contract does for straight couples.
Now I’m curious as to why, even with the same protections as straight couples, why gays need to have their union called a “marriage.” What is it about that word that makes gays think it will make their lives better? Have they seen the “divorce” rate? (OK, that was an easy shot.)

Of course when big news happens it is usually discussed at length in the newsroom. Since I don’t really care one way or the other, here’s some of the ideas that have been talked about.

1.) One of the major concerns I hear is that the gay marriage issue is less about getting the same rights as married people and more about forcing society to accept their lifestyle.
I really hope this isn’t the case. In general I support peoples’ right to live and form unions with whomever they choose. But once you start crossing the line and forcing me to accept something that I may oppose, I have to stand against it on principle.
It’s the old “Don’t force your beliefs on me” doctrine, which gay people have been known to use ad nauseam. Ironic, isn’t it.
2.) Another concern is that if gay marriage is approved, it will force churches to recognize and perform ceremonies for gay folks. That would be tantamount to condoning a lifestyle that many churches and their parishioners believe to be an abomination (God’s words, not mine). Quite simply, you can’t do that. You can’t force people to take part in your lifestyle. It’s un-American.
Religious people are some of the most tolerant and understanding people in the world. But if gay marriage is approved and the church has to conform to the homosexual lifestyle, the religious folks will rise up with a level of intolerance never experienced before. And it would be their right to do so. Sorry gays, but your rights end where another person’s rights begin. Don’t expect opponents of the homosexual lifestyle to accept it just because some judge says so. Opponents have every right to stand up for and defend their own personal beliefs and their way of life.
Most people will “go along to get along” just to keep the peace. But if you really want to push churches, and by extension the congregation, to the point of war, you will get a war. And it will be ugly. And you will lose.
3.) The real bummer is that church leaders will have to comply. Regardless of their doctrine and theology, most churches in this country are just an agent of the state. They are nothing more than another 501c3 non-profit organization, which are required to obey the whims of the state’s laws, statutes and judgments. (That’s why a marriage by a priest or pastor is valid in the eyes of the state, he’s just another agent of the state.) A church’s doctrine and theology are its lifeblood. If churches are forced to abandon their deeply held beliefs, the church will implode, which may make some of you gay folks happy.
While there will likely be a mass exoduses from the church, all those folks are going to be pissed and they will come after you and put you to death (Old Testament style).
4.) There is also the issue of going from state to state. If a gay couple gets married in California, the marriage won’t be recognized in other states. San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom said of the issue, “As California goes, so goes the rest of the country.” (That’s a paraphrase.) Didn’t California vote in 2000 to keep marriage between a man and a woman? I think the percentage was like 60-40 in favor of traditional marriage. And California is supposedly a liberal state. If gays are beaten that bad in one of their own states, they will waste a lot of taxpayer money trying to get the rest of the nation to “go gay.” That personally ticks me off, because making every state gay is not what that big chunk of change missing from my paycheck every payday is supposed to be used for.
5.) The other issue is what to do about polygamous relationships. If the gays get their way and get to redefine marriage (and the marriage contract), then folks who have three or more parties in their relationship will also want the same benefits and protections. I believe it would be their right, too. But I have to come back to the question of, “Why do you need to be ‘married’ in the first place?” There are gays that are now in loving and fulfilling relationship and there are polygamous people who are also now in a loving and fulfilling relationship. What is it about “marriage” that makes it so desirable? Ask around. I bet it won’t be long until you hear the words “tax break.”

It is my opinion that gays are pushing the issue at this point. I, and most people, don’t care what other people do with their lives. “I am who I am and you are who you are.” “Live and let live.” “Go along to get along.” These tired old truisms have, up to this point, served society well when it comes down to tolerating different lifestyles and beliefs. We may not agree, but we don’t have to.
While I respect that gays are seemingly standing up for the principal of “equal rights,” I think they are taking part in the very behavior they supposedly oppose. Namely force-feeding their agenda to society at large, and especially to those of a conservative or religious persuasion.
While I am neither religious nor conservative, I personally feel the gay issue is a distraction to other more important issues that affect everybody. Taxes, the economy, energy, the environment, etc.
I also think gays are stepping over the line when they try to force acceptance by court order. The California Marriage Amendment will go on the November ballot. I don’t know how I’m going to vote yet. But the more I hear about how the homosexual lifestyle is so horrible without “marriage” benefits, the more I lean toward making sure “marriage” is kept between a man and a woman, just out of spite.