Gay marriage redux

I have written numerous articles on the subject of gay marriage, and in each one of them, I have expressed exactly how ludicrous I thought the subject was. I stated clearly how I felt that he institution of marriage was purely a religious creation, not a secular one. I also stated that I felt that civil unions were entirely appropriate way to deal with this issue. The primary concern I hear voiced about gay marriage coming from gay couples, is that there needs to be some sort of protection for the spouse in a gay relocationship, so that they do not lose benefits, or access to them, as a result of not having their union recognized.

I have been blasted for this stance, and was recently presented with the following statement:

"Wow, what a bad "article". First of all, marriage, as recognized by the government, is NOT a religious institution. Marriage, in civic life, has nothing to do with Christianity. This is evidenced by the fact that not only can Christians marry in public life, but so can Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs and atheists. Gays wanting to marry want nothing to do with your Christian rules. All they desire is equality with heterosexual couples in the eyes of the government. Whether you find homosexuality right, wrong or disgusting it does not matter. The right to marry is something that directly impacts their quality of life. Gay marriage may also provide stability for gay couples that may decrease promiscuity which benefits everyone in decreased health care expenses and disease transmission. Now, you never have to accept a gay married couple into your church or find their relationship acceptable, but the secular government does need to recognize their relationships, as the constitution provides for equal protection for all people."

The person that offered this comment made a severe mistake and included atheists in their list. Atheists do not go to a church, and therefore do not get married in a church. Society may refer to an atheist couple as being “married”, but that is out of habit and it is completely incorrect. What this atheist couple has is a civil union. What is really going on here is we are getting hung up on semantics, and not going anywhere with this subject but round and round. So let’s cut the crap.

To homosexuals who wish to set up shop, and have their rights protected fully so that their spouses can receive the same benefits that married couples commonly do, I have no problem with the use of a civil union to resolve this issue. If you wish to call yourself married you are free to do so, even though it is technically incorrect. Marriage is still a religious institution, and you go ahead and find me the exact spot in any religion’s holy documents that authorizes gay marriage. I will not hold my breath while you are looking through various Bibles trying to find a supporting argument.

To those people who tend to be conservative and religious, I have a response for you as well. Homosexuals have been engaging in sexual acts for thousands of years, and they currently are performing these acts right now somewhere out there in Happyville USA. (Some of them are your most powerful preachers.)

Homosexuals live under the same roof, just as married couples do, and this has been occurring for some time, and it will continue in the future. You cannot stop these behaviors, even if you make them illegal, because we have already tried this and failed to restrain these practices.

I am all open ears for those of you from the religious right, to tell me exactly how a civil union for a gay couple is going to have a negative impact on you personally. I will not hold my breath while you are looking for an excuse to decry a civil union.

By the way, how come you guys on the far right have not raised a huge stink on the subject of atheists getting “married”? There are just about as many atheist couples as there are homosexual couples. What gives people? Atheists are not following the laws and rules of God, and they keep insisting upon getting married, but I haven’t heard any complaints about this matter. The lack of complaints wouldn’t have anything to do with your being homophobic would it now? Perhaps this is just because Karl Rove didn’t think that atheists getting married would get your fannies into the voting booth. Maybe Karl understands what your priorities are better than you do.