Kirkepiscatoid

Well, I can't help but think about a "marriage for all" ballot issue in California without thinking about a classic but now horribly politically incorrect "Archie Bunkerism." When Gloria and Meathead were going to move to California, Archie snorted, "California. The land of fruits and nuts--where every fruit is a little bit nutty, and every nut is a little bit fruity!"

I have to wonder, though, in this day and age, "Who's the fruits and who's the nuts?" The "nuts" to me, seem to be the "preserve the sanctity of marriage at all cost" crowd. They certainly like to wave the Bible around, open to certain spots in Leviticus and Paul's letters. I find that interesting since most of us eat shrimp or wear cotton-poly blend, and most of us don't attend a mikveh or worry much about that unclean stuff. I haven't been invited to come over and stone a neighbor's disobedient child or anything like that lately either. So, considering Jesus himself never uttered a word about homosexuality (it appears he was too busy talking about the poor and whatnot), I just don't see why people are fussing over committed couples wanting to make it "official."

For that matter, the part of me with the Libertarian overtones says, "Why should the government be in the marriage business anyway? Marriage is a sacrament. Government should not be in the sacrament business. Government should be in the inheritance business. The government has a right to tax, and in that sense it has a right to insist on a way to determine our legal heirs, determine how many family members live in your house, how many are dependents, etc. They have a right to insist on legal couplings.

The problem is, we have blurred the meaning of the word "marriage" by having both a secular and a religious meaning to it. I think if a church doesn't want to claim certain groups can't marry based on their interpretation of the Bible, ok, fine. But insofar as cohabitation and legal rights goes, I think any two people who live in the same house for 7 years are at least the equivalent of "married" and I can't believe in a million years they don't have some joint property.

To me, letting same sex couples marry is just a non-issue in terms of how it affects me. It doesn't make me any less straight, it doesn't threaten any straight person's marriage (although maybe Madonna will try that tack now? tee hee), and I can't believe any gay or lesbian couple can screw up childrearing any worse than some heterosexual couples have, so no biggie there. I just don't understand why "marriage traditionalists" seem so THREATENED by something that will not affect their personal rights not one little bit!

No on 8. Makes sense to me. You Californians do something about it, since I can't, living in Missouri and all...