How to solve the gay marriage problem
Copyright 2009, Jim Penny
Word count: 665
Today, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled the state law that forbade same sex marriage was unconstitutional. The ruling was unanimous. The corner of the world that covers queer news has been active, to say the least. The other corner of the world that covers why queers are going to hell has also been quite active, with more than one fundamentalist announcing another sign of the end of time, and suggesting that now a man may marry a houseplant in Iowa.
I would site a few references, but you can get all you need from Google without my help. If you need a better place to start, I suggest you go to Pam's House Blend where you can find what you need to reach the web sites that interest you.
However, this has all been discussed to death already. You either like it or or you hate it; there are few people in the middle on this one. However, if gay marriage gives you heartburn, I suspect you're going to need additional Prilosec sooner than later. Here is my suggestion for dealing with this problem.
Let us define marriage as something the church does so that couple can screw without going to hell. The church may apply the filters it sees fit to maintain the purity of the church and it's heaven. If you and your intended mate meet the specifications defined by the church, the church may marry you. Although this marriage infers that you'll be headed to heaven because you're not living in sin, you get nothing from the state. The marriage is all about going to heaven. If you want legal things, you need to see the next paragraph.
Let us define civil union as something the state does to recognize the union of two people who love each other. The state may not deny the right to a civil union to any citizen. The civil union granted by one state will be recognized by all other states. With the civil union, you get all the legal things like inheritance, joint tax, hospital visitation, but you do not get to go to heaven. If you want to go to heaven, you must find a church that will accept you.
What's good here
What is good here is that the separation of church and state leaves both to do what is right for them. If the Mormons want to bring back polygamy, and some never let it go, they are welcome to it. If a splinter group of queer Mormons decided to accept polygamous same sex marriage, they can do that. If a Baptist church gets more than a little hot and bothered by the snakes it uses, parishioners could marry one. It's all cool.
The state, on the other hand, will grant civil unions to citizens with all the rights and privileges therein, as defined by law. If space aliens land, settle in, and start to get frisky with the locals, the space aliens can become a part of the tax paying citizenry, visit the local magistrate, and start filing join tax returns with the rest of us. If at some point, we determine that house ferns are sentient beings capable of loving and giving relationships, the law can be extended to permit those marriages as well, though it'll probably be a while before we can go green.
What's bad here
What's bad here is that there are more idiots in this world than I can shake a stick at, and some of those idiots carry a substantial degree of influence. Why in the world an expression of love between two people should elicit such unnecessary expressions of hate is simply beyond my comprehension. We got over it with the Indians. We got over it with the Blacks. We got over it with the Mexicans. It's time to just plain get over it, people, and move on to some real problems.