I’m proud to notice how Mick Zano’s writing skills have sharpened with this recent move west; I only wish I could say the same about his reasoning skills.  On the gay marriage issue, Mick makes one valid point, and on that I agree—many people’s rational arguments against gay marriage are a mere mask for their deeper bigoted motivations.  Unfortunately, there are occasions when bigoted assholes make better arguments than Mick Zano.

Mick suggests that these bigots—I suppose the Dali Lama should be included—have banded together to pick on the oppressed minority of homosexuals by denying them their inherent right to marriage.  But this dispute wasn’t started by the bigots; it was started by gay activists themselves, who went through the courts to change the traditional definition of marriage.  They argue that the issue of gay marriage is comparable to allowing bi-racial couples the right to marry.  This is not a civil rights issue and homosexuals have the same right to marriage as I do—we both have the right to marry…a person of the opposite sex.  Neither of us can marry people of the same sex. Government sanctioned marriage by definition exists between one adult man and one adult woman; I’d personally like to marry three different eleven-year old lamas (the Dali Lama not included), but that desire does not conform to the traditional definition of marriage.  I’m not going to turn this into a civil rights issue; I’m going to make my argument to the American people and elect legislators who will change the law so that my romantic aspirations can be realized (watch your life-sized nativity scene animals this Christmas, folks; that’s all I’m saying).

And let’s remember that gay couples already posses the right to marry before their family, friends, some churches, and God. They just don’t have the right to have their marriage recognized by the United States government.  Why is it so important for gay people to have the government recognize their homosexual union in the first place?  Why does the government recognize any marriage at all?  The answer—children.  Marriage has traditionally been the institution that best supports the nurturing and development of the future generations.

I do believe that it’s important for our society to respect alternative family units, and allow these families the equal legal rights that are provided to traditional marriages—including the right to adopt.  Civil unions are the legal bridge that avoids the anger, resentment, and crisis provoked by the ‘gay marriage’ issue.

With civil unions as a viable legal institution, the issue of gay marriage need not be this hotbed of political division, but if activists choose to press the fight by going to the courts, then please don’t blame me, the Dali Lama, or our bigoted mob.