my brother had 2 male black labs that routinely raped eachother. dont tell me animals cant be gay.
but seriously as much as one side of the argument thump religious dogma and the the other side thump civil rights and whatnot. the real issue about gay marriage is entirely a monetary one. any organization (government or private) who pays out money or benefits to straight couples and their families does not want to be legally obligated to pay the same to gay couples.
ive always made the claim that if the institution of marriage was to be religiously defined, then it has no place in government. any gay couple could be defined as married if they could find a religious organization to certify it (and there are those that will). this certification would not have any legal binding at all and only has meaning within the context of the church in which it was issued. essentially abolish the marriage license. in its place put up a union license. any group of 2 or more people could apply for one. the license would legally define the group as a family, taxes may be filed jointly and all members of the union would be eligible for both public and private benefits.
i think its rather ridiculous for people to get divorced because its financially more affordable, or get hitched just so they could live together and share benefits. then you got people who get open marriages so that they could share living expenses, but are free too peruse other relations (you know, swingers). i dont see why we try to enforce such strict restrictions on the definition of marriage if people are going to screw around with it anyway and twist it to their own needs. this grants religious organizations the right to define what marriage is, without encroaching on the rights of gays, lesbians, frat boys, sorority girls, creches, hippy communes, and **** clubs.
