On Gay Marriage

I'd like you guys to watch this clip from the Daily Show and then read my response to it. I'm considering turning it into a speech but I need some feedback. I also think this is a crucially relevant issue to our times and an appropriate point of discussion.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Mike Huckabee Pt. 2

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

the ability of a man and a woman to, as Mike Huckabee puts it, "anatomically" create a family is not put in jeopardy by the "redefinition" of the word Marriage. the only thing that changes is how many are allowed the Privilege of financial protection and legal partnership. that is what this is about. the conservative movement sees the "gay agenda" as wanting to legitimize their lifestyle, which - ironically enough - it is. and here is where we have two sides of the same coin: gay people want legal legitimacy, their opponents don't want gay people to have social legitimacy; they see the changing of the legal definition of marriage to include gays as societal condonation of the gay lifestyle, which it is. moreover, they see it as the state governments saying that the conservative christian viewpoint holds no sway in law, which they obviously dislike. short of legally forming and defining two separate religious and secular societies - short of causing further separation - how do we reconcile these two opposing viewpoints?

whether this attitude makes you a "homophobe" or not - whether this activity denies a "basic" human right - is irrelevant. this is one of many steps that gays have taken toward cultural recognition, and just like any other stigmatized minority, they have met with opposition from the traditionalist members of our society. nothing new there. the interesting thing about what the gays' opponents have done is that they have framed the debate, as stewart said, in terms of Semantics. the interesting thing about semantics is that they hold no sway on what people actually do. i could fuck my cousin and call it a marriage, but that wouldn't make it one. i could kill the old man next door and call it divorce, but that wouldn't make it one. what i do and what the law recognizes as legitimate activity are not necessarily the same. case in point: religious folk can't even agree on how to perform a marriage ceremony (i.e. what makes a marriage legitimate in the eyes of their sect) amongst themselves. the best they can come up with is "one man, one woman," but again, as stewart said, the definition of marriage has changed radically throughout the millenia; this is just its modern reinterpretation.

let us not forget that to allow tens of thousands of couples to marry overnight would create a huge strain on the insurance industry. all of a sudden they would have to be responsible for a plethora of new, legally recognized arrangements. if your husband or wife dies in the line of work or of duty, you receive insurance benefits as their legal partner, should you choose to have a policy stipulating such. right now, if you're just a domestic partner, you don't get any of that. i think we're all familiar with how little insurance companies enjoy giving their policy-holders money. again, this is about freedom - not semantics.

lunging for your bible at the mention of the word gay is not going to change the fact that marriage as a social construct has only emerged with the social legitimacy of the second partner, aka the Woman. marriage has been a legal arrangement first and a social arrangement last for nearly as long as it's been in existence. the only thing that's changed is the dictators of the law; once it was the church, no longer can it be: we, the people of this republic chose religious freedom over theocratic monarchy. with that freedom comes the regulated dearth of influence of religious sects in the secular government. whether or not the Founding Fathers were christian is again irrelevant. the Founding Fathers are dead, and we have done many things to their idea of society that would make them blush a mere 232 years later.

this is the problem: our society cannot revolve around the selfish desires of elite ideologues or their flocks if it is to consider itself fair. these people are the same breed of zealous self-styled prophet that has plagued societies with angry, backward ideas since societies began. they should be shunned and ridiculed. much to our dismay, wrapping oneself in the flag and holding a cross does much to inspire the weeping hordes of glossolalial sycophants we call our countrymen. so, it is left to we, the Ones Who Ask Questions, to create a fairer society which does not put its decisions in the hands of Mike Huckabee or his wretched ilk.