On Prop 8

I am filled with a seething embarrassment to have been asked to vote upon the matter of the Constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriage. There are occasionally those who argue either side from an economic standpoint, which, for me, serves only to induce a raised eyebrow of amusement, but it is apparent that this issue is based solely on religious belief.

It is not, however, just the whack-jobs of the Westboro Baptist Church spewing this insipid diatribe. When having a conversation with any (seemingly) level-headed religious person of the most "moderate" faith on the subject, I am typically faced with a unanimous agreement that homosexuality is not only morally wrong, but that it is somehow only an acquired taste. (A side note on this matter: it seems silly to me to ascribe one single "cause" to homosexuality, be it a natural preference or one effected by one's environment, etc. Absolute explanations of this sort only diminish the complexity of the matter, and shouldn't have any bearing on the question of its legality.) There are of course the "having-it-both-ways-moderate-religious-liberals" who will selectively go against their holy documents in support of the homosexual plight (that, however, is a different conversation, and I won't have it said that I've made a sweeping generalization about the attitudes of the faithful).

Then there are the proponents of Civil Unions, which even the Democratic presidential ticket favors. That's all fine and dandy; it provides visitation rights, property-ownership rights, etc. Why not also provide them their own drinking fountains? (Do you catch my drift Mr. Obama?)

What this has really come down to is a semantic argument approaching the horizon of mind-numbing inanity. There is endless argumentation over the definition of "marriage" as being sacred, religious, governmental (etc.) institution, without a whisper of the idea that it can have multiple meanings and contexts. All a couple really needs to do to be married in this country is to sit for a few minutes in front of a judge and sign some paperwork to be awarded the bundle of aforementioned rights and privileges. There needn't be music, special collars, or boring sermons that have nothing to do with the ceremony at hand. If a church refuses to marry a homosexual couple, fine. It is after all against the tenets of their book, wise as they are. But the religious ceremony is an entirely separate occasion than the legal jargon, and should not be conflated into one definition.

We are talking about the decisions of consenting adults. Let us not forget that the last of the Sodomy Laws weren't repealed by the Supreme Court until 2003 (and how many heterosexual couples do you suppose were arrested for that one?). There always seems to be a religiously-based perverse obsession with the sexual habits of others, and it's time to remove it from the political process.

For those fond of the slippery slope argument, I leave you with Lewis Black: