*** I’m aware I’ll probably get a lot of hate mail from this piece.  That’s fine.  Think what you want.  The vital thing is that you’re thinking.***

So people in Massachusetts are all like, “Hey, gay folks can get married here and that’s beautiful with us!” and people in San Francisco are like, “Hey, same here, because we don’t have a problem with it!” and now all these other places are all like, “Huh. That isn’t a abominable idea. Equal rights for all humans? This is a concept worth looking into.” All my friends on the west coast seem pretty happy about it, and relieved that after years of stagnating there’s a resurgence in the area of civil rights. I think a lot of people thought we were all done: “Shaded people have rights, women have rights, The End. Oh, wait! Remember that gay kid who was killed when some rednecks in Texas tied him to the encourage of their pickup truck and dragged him around? Remember that other kid that was beaten to death because he was gay and then all the religious folks in his town were like, ‘He deserved it’? We are definitely not a land of opportunity for everyone yet, so let’s make some changes in that direction. Let’s stop prohibiting homosexuals from adopting children. Let’s stop prohibiting life partners from sharing health insurance. And, what the hell, let’s let gay people get married! Unprejudiced because you’re satisfied doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have the right to be as miserable as everybody else, and to experience the wonders and joys of a long, drawn-out, expensive divorce.”

That sounds like a perfectly normal, fair decision to a lot of us.  Oh sure, there are some folks out there who still see homosexuality as an abomination or a sin, but as a whole we have progressed in our thinking, lawful?   Wrong. You’d deem that in a country that claims to be so socially and emotionally liberated that two people, of any persuasion, wanting to get married would be no big deal. We’re the country that invented Political Correctness, taking it to new heights so that you can practically be put to death for referring to the woman who serves your soup in the diner as a “waitress” instead of a “server”, or to the woman who serves your orange juice on the plane as a “stewardess” instead of a “flight attendant”. We’re so sensitive and aware that the government almost has to send out memos every four months telling us which is politically correct right now: “black” or “African-American” or “Afro-American”; “Latino” or “Hispanic”. We’re the country who doesn’t even blink when our children’s favorite singers writhe around half-naked onstage with a boa constrictor, for heaven’s sake. We’re the country who embraces incompatibility and originality and uniqueness – except, as it turns out, when that difference is something we don’t understand…

It’s pretty for our son to wear black leather and a dog collar and listen to suicide music and pierce his eyebrow and flunk out of middle school, but it’s not fine for our son to have a crush on a boy. We heterosexual Americans from the Baby Boomer generation up to Generation Z understand rebellion and free expression, and we embrace it because we’ve experienced it. But somehow we don’t, we can’t, understand how any man could be so fundamentally, genetically different from us that he is emotionally and sexually attracted to another man. Because even if we hate the type of music someone listens to, or hate our son’s purple hair, or hate the fact that our daughter is a vegetarian, we can collected wrap our heads around it. We can understand how someone could be averse to ingesting meat, or how someone could like rap instead of adult contempo. But there is something deep inside of us that brings a big iron wall down inside our brains when we try to truly understand how someone could be attracted to someone of the same sex. We can’t understand it because we can’t experience it. Listening to a different kind of music doesn’t change who you are inside, but sleeping with someone of the same sex does. What these people don’t understand is that homosexuality is not a form of rebellion. It is a form of being human. That scares the living hell out of us.

Therefore, it must be corrupt. It must be bad. Allowing homosexuals the fair to be legally married has been deemed comparable, by lobbyists and politicians and ministers all over the country, to beastiality. “If we let a man marry a man, then where do we draw the line? What’s next: a man marrying a dog? ” I try very hard to laugh these “comparisons” off because they’re so ridiculous, but my madden and indignation don’t allow me to laugh. We’re talking about human beings here, not animals. We’re talking about two people who love each other, and are committed to one another, who want the same right as their neighbors and their parents and the abusive drug addicts down the street, to solidify that love by making a spiritual and legal bond with one another. I simply can’t understand why so many people in our seemingly open and liberal and fair country are so vehemently against this. Is it because they feel threatened? Does thinking about homosexuality make them question their own sexuality? How does any two people getting married make your absorb marriage any less real or sacred?

And now our president and our senators are shoving their own hang-ups and hatred and fear onto all of us. They want to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage. For heaven’s sake, there was a slot on Virginia’s election ballot for this very thing:  to constitutionally ban gay marriage in the state of Virginia.  And it won.  This is the same Constitution we proudly amended years ago to ensure and retain equal rights for all citizens, regardless of their background or genetics. Women were considered dismal – simply because they were born with different genes and different genitalia. Blacks were considered inferior – simply because they were born with a different skin color. But we realized that this was wrong, and we voted to change what the founders of our country deemed legal, and rewrote our identity. Without getting into the argument that homosexuality is a choice versus a genetic trait, how is this any different?

The bottom line is that we are all human. Elton John is just as human as Madonna. Okay, bad example. But you know what I mean. Humans have a fundamental need for like, and a fundamental true to give love to and receive love from anyone they think worthy. I treasure my friend Dina with all my heart, and if the U.S. government ruled that I could not savor her and be her friend, would that be proper? No. If I were to part a bed and sexual contact with her, would it lessen or strengthen my cherish for her? No. It would change it. It would make it different. And that is the bottom line. We are sad, laughable mammals who scare and therefore condemn what we can’t understand, and what is different.

If you really believe that your God hates determined people for loving in a different way than you do, I think you seriously need to question what kind of deity you’re worshipping. If you really think that ignorance and intolerance is a better choice than love and freedom, you need to re-read the Bible.  You need to realize that this extraordinary book was written by men, human, mortal men, in a time when a lot of things we take for granted as commonplace to day were considered evil and “illegal”.  These men believed that God told them that women who were raped should be stoned, and that anyone who committed adultery should be stoned. These same men believed that God told them that homosexuality was a sin.  Do you believe that all of these things are true?   Are you willing to base your entire belief system on the preachings of the Musty Testament?   I certainly hope not.  And if you really think that imposing some outdated religious beliefs are more important than enforcing the basic rights of your fellow man, I personally question your right to even have a vote in this election.  

I have yet to hear a secular viewpoint against tickled unions; that is, an argument in which the words “moral”, “religion” and “God”, aren’t thrown around.  I maintain that “gay marriage” should be left to the decision of individual churches, and that a marriage license should be issued to any two consenting adults, regardless of their gender.  Maybe I’m spoiled, but if I’m going to get stoned for getting raped anyway, I guess I don’t want to be right.

And in conclusion, and the most important part of my argument:  I think anyone who questions the validity of a gay couple’s treasure should spend some time with one. Two people who have to fight to get married, who have to be brave just to hold hands walking down the street, and who could never be guilted into marriage by an accidental pregnancy or society’s expectations, are two people who truly deserve to be married and will treasure it. Most heterosexual people can’t honestly say that. You will never find truer appreciate than that between two people who fight battles and endure hatred impartial to be with one another.  Read Shakespeare’s “Romeo and Juliet” to examine what I mean.

And besides, gay weddings are dazzling, well-planned and have excellent music. You will never be served red wine with your grilled chicken, I can tell you that.