Right to wedlock a pointless cause

When it comes to the ever-annoying fight over gay marriage,
never have so many people whined so much over a battle so
pointless.

Personally, I am inclined to support the legalization of any
marriage for the same reason I support the legalization of drugs:
Everyone has a right to self-harm.

But the problem with gay marriage is that it
shouldn�t even be an issue. In a truly free
society, the government wouldn�t specially
privilege any private affairs.

Gays could make contracts with each other and call them whatever
they wish — be it �marriage� or
�domestic peace treaty� — while
others could recognize such contracts as they wish. Extending
marriage rights is merely about qualifying more people for
privileges that shouldn�t exist in the first
place.

Modern political discourse is frustrating enough, but since gay
marriage should be a nonissue, the arguments both for and against
it have been particularly groundless and annoying.

Many on the religious right have secured their place in the Earl
Warren District of hell for even thinking about desecrating our
sacred Constitution by adding references to marriage to it. Sen.
Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania has called it �the
ultimate homeland security� to prevent a tiny
percentage of the population from being able to call itself
�married.� Some have said gay
marriage would mean the end of western civilization as we know
it.

This is the type of belief that is only bearable when expressed
in a heavy, drawling Southern accent, replete with ancient
references to beasts and horns on Sunday morning talk radio.

Not all opponents of gay marriage are this acrimonious. Many
would love to see gays get married but also want to retain the
institution�s traditional definition. Their
message to gay men is thus a friendly one: �Be a
sport,� they say. �Learn how to
do a chick.� Some of the clerics might even offer
to teach.

Meanwhile, the gay rights movement has stuck to its own
tradition of identity-centered thought. Its members have claimed
that their love cannot be sanctified unless it is recognized by the
state.

Coming from those who think government is God, this view is
expected, but nothing could undermine the concept of love — and
individuality — more than the need for government validation.

Many also claim that disallowing gay marriage encourages social
castigation and results in more closet homosexuals. But having sex
in closets is a fetish hardly confined to gays. And
it�s hard to see how forcing any lifestyle through
law on an unwilling public would result in greater acceptance.

Opponents argue that guys marrying guys could eventually lead to
guys marrying two guys and guys marrying dogs. Dog argument aside,
gay marriage advocates have not sufficiently responded to the
polygamy point. If marriage is opened to include any lifelong,
loving relationship, there would be no principle to outlaw
polygamy.

Gay marriage advocates ask why straight couples should have
legal benefits gay couples don�t have. But why
should any couples have legal benefits singles
don�t have? Why should anyone have special
benefits?

That�s the fundamental question this pesky,
futile feud over marriage ignores.

That said, what to do now? Should marital benefits, as long as
they exist, be extended to gays as a measure of equality? Imagine
that members of a certain religion received special treatment from
the government. Would the solution be for members of a different
religion to also get special treatment � or for
the government to stay out of religion altogether?

The orientation-equality war will never end until there is a
complete separation of sex and state.

If you�re a cleric offering lessons, e-mail
Mouhibian at [email protected].