Echoes.

I’m so in love with Melissa Etheridge at the moment.

From People.com: “Etheridge declares that if she’s not ‘allowed the same right [to marry] under the state constitution as any other citizen. … I am taking that to mean I do not have to pay my state taxes, because I am not a full citizen.”’

‘Okay,’ she continues. ‘There is a lot I can do with the extra half a million dollars that I will be keeping instead of handing it over to the state of California.’”

Lol – I wonder what would happen in every state if the people affected by these bans started saying the same thing?
After all, people are biologically made to be the way they are – homosexuality is no more a choice than breathing is and the people that choose to deny their inherent sexuality and ‘be straight’ tend to lead miserable lives that no one should have to lead.
People should be able to love and marry whomever they love.

And then you always get the argument – ‘well what if people were attracted to animals and wanted to marry them – isn’t that the same thing?’

Let’s look away from the fact that that is INCREDIBLY insulting to the gay people that I know and love, but look into two important problems with that argument.
1. We’re of the same SPECIES.
2. Ever heard of the word CONSENT? Animals can’t say ‘dude, that’s cool, I want a good ass pounding.’

So every time I hear that argument, I literally want to scoop people’s brains out and fry them on the sidewalk.
If they’re not doing anything with them, why not use them to feed the local homeless animal population?

The question on whether or not a marriage between gay folks should be called ‘marriage’ or something else really is just a case of semantics.
Legally our decisions are not supposed to be made by our religious faith.
Though they are – you’ve heard the recent screamings that Obama was Muslim and so forth, as though that single item can define someone wholly, as though that makes him a bad person when so much of the faith promotes peace and love, – people jumped on that as though he’d slaughtered a million people.

I don’t know why we’ve allowed so much of our definitions of equality to be decided by a religion that, although the major faith in this country, does not define everyone equally.

But we have.

And the history of the word marriage – a word used before Jesus was ever born. A word that the ancient Romans used to describe marriages between opposite sexes or the same sex. As a matter of fact, they believed that the only true harmonious unions could be between members of the same (male) sex, that females were married for property and power, but that their brains were too weak to make a truly wonderful match with their husband.

That’s the word we’re arguing over.
So yeah.

While I understand that people feel strongly on whether or not marriage should be defined as only between a man and woman – mostly based on biblical definitions – denying them rights that we heteros take for granted seems cruel.
Much like a game that you play as children where the other party makes up and changes the rules as the game goes along.

If we’re going to govern with the Bible as our form of government, we’re going to have a few problems.
If you have any questions, feel free to read ‘The Year of Living Biblically’ because it’s fantastic, but also because it shows that there are so many things that we have stopped doing that the Bible commands us to do.

One or the other, folks.

And if we’re going that way, let’s go full out. After all, everyone knows that I know a certain adulterer that I’d like to be the first one to stone…