Don't make me cry for a piece of the pie...
Every single one of us, the devil inside...

Love me, love me, say that you love me...

I always thought of myself as rather average. Ordinary. Run of the mill. I don't have any particularly astounding abilities or achievements. I'm not a great man. Just normal. I love. I eat. I sleep. I work. I play. I breathe.

But, when it comes to thought, I'm clearly ahead of the pack. This isn't some conscious choice I made. I didn't wake up one morning and decide, "Kevin, you are now a forward-thinking individual."

And what would be this great thought that I have? This belief I hold that makes me greater than the status quo? I'll tell you...

I think gay people should be allowed to get married.

Yes, folks, you read it here. Kevin believes that the state of matrimonial bliss should be experienced by those who love people of the same gender.

No, this is not a technically groundbreaking belief. I know many people who share in it. Katie is one of them.

Yet, for some strange reason, a large percentage of this country holds an innate phobia of same-sex marriage. They cannot possibly fathom such a thing. In fact, our President is proposing a Constitutional ban on it.

Well, here's a point for you to ponder... it's not something that you need to fathom.

No one is asking you to be a partner in a same-sex union. All you need to do is acknowledge and accept that there are same-sex couples out there that do love each other in the same way that you love your hetero significant other.

Who are we to determine who "should" or "should not" fall in love? Who are we to say that one group of people can be legally recognized as a couple and another cannot?

You can throw all the "legal," "ethical," and "moral" justifications you want at me. You can point out all the Biblical claims that it is wrong.

But I won't buy it.

I know what it's like to doubt the power of love only to discover that it truly can exist, even for a loser like myself. When you find it, you want to grab on to it and never let go. If you have not experienced this yet, I hope you do. But don't deny someone else their right, as a human being, to follow their heart.

To be honest with you, the United States has a much bigger problem to worry about, in my humble opinion. The bigger problem is that we make it far too easy now for heterosexuals to get married and divorced. (Yes, it's an ironic claim considering I'm fighting to make marriage legal and easier for homosexual couples, but, oh well, deal with it.)

Two people who have known each other for mere hours can get married in Las Vegas and a select few other areas with nothing more than a late-night marriage license, a fistful of cash, and drunken lust. On the flip side of the coin, two people who suddenly decide they no longer love each other can end it, no questions asked. And, for the right price, the divorce can be expedited through the legal system, just ask Hollywood. Money clearly does make the world go round. How is that right?

And you're worried about two people who love each other enough that they are willing to fight the legal system and put their love out there on display in front of the ignorant and intolerant masses so they can be together? These are people that clearly are truly, madly, deeply in love with other. Most of us can only dream about something that great and you want to take it away from them.

Now tell me whose priorities are out of whack?


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Same sex marriage should be allowed. If you think the President is doing this because he thinks it will pass, your nuts and not a "forward thinking individual". He knows damn well this will never pass. It is a pain in the ass to ratify the constitution. He is just doing this to please his base. That would be about 15-20% of the people that voted for him. Just like every other politician does on horseshit issues, so is he. I don't think for one minute that most people care about this issue. In fact, I heard some poll on the news that said that there are 28 or 29 other issues the American people want to be addressed before this one.

I don't care either way. I just want ALL these social issues to go away. I a sick and tired of hearing it from both sides of the aisle. There are more important things to worry about. Let them get married/union. They don't listen to the American people anyway. They keep on doing what ever they want. PEOPLE! STOP VOTING FOR THESE SAME IDIOT POLITICIANS! PLEASE!

That is what I think they should do. Call it a union. Get religion out of it. Marriage is religion or comes from it. Call it a "union" by the state and leave the "marriage" word to the churches. Then all those wacko extreme Christians can keep their sanity or their WORD. Now, if there is a religion that wants to marry same sex couple, let their church fight with their own people. That way we keep it out of the government.

So, If anybody wants to get married, Two women, Two Men, Man and a woman or a woman and a man. They go down to the court house and get their UNION license. Now they are officially together according to the state. If they have a church that will marry them. Get R Done!


MIM, I realize the Prez doesn't give a rat's ass about it and knows it won't pass (or I would hope he realizes it). And I know he's doing it to please his base. But the fact that he's wasting our time and tax dollars with this Constitutional Amendment passage is just sad. If he truly doesn't care, he should tell his constituency to piss off. Not that it would happen, but why should he pander to the uber-right when he's not worried about re-election? To give the right a better foothold in the next election? Great. That's just what we need. I would love to see all this fighting between the parties and the populace's disgust with both parties serve as a launchpad for a legitimate third party.

Oh, and the only way I'd agree with a "union" is if it was recognized and afforded the same rights and abilities as a marriage. If there is any difference between the two other than the fact that the church sanctions one and not the other, then it's a no go. If individual states or companies/corporations can say that a difference exists and they will not recognize it as a "marriage" and allow for things like insurance benefits, next of kin recognition, etc., then no.

Tracy Lynn

He may not be worried about re-election, but you can bet that the GOP is worried about losing the majority. And THAT, my friends, is why this idiot proposal is being brought up again.

This kind of thing fills me with hate. Directed appropriately, of course.


Unions should have the same rights for everybody. Property is key here. I don't want two people that are living together for years to lose their property to the government.

If you take the word marriage out. That might get some people off their soapbox. Keep that to the individual religions!

ms. sizzle

i have so much to say about this but i will keep it brief- i couldn't agree with you more. AND many of my queer-identified friends have been in relationships for far longer than any of my hetero friends. it breaks my heart that they don't have the rights that i do just because i am attracted to the opposite sex. it's bullshit! if my friend's partner gets sick, can she make have the same visiting rights in the hospital? not likely. when one of them passes, what happens to their house and years of belongings?

it seems heteros don't do marriage very well anyhow. why are they so desperate to keep it all to themselves?!

rrrRRRrrr this makes me so angry!


I'm also in support of same sex marriage. Visit for a funny view of the current administration. I would be cautious about playing at work with the volume up! :) The first version is better than the second.


This entire conflict exists because we do not keep Church and State fully and truly separate. And wasn't that one of the fundamental reasons for the founding of this country?


What really fries my bacon is that two atheists can get married in a non-religious ceremony by the Justice of the Peace, and nobody says anything... so long as they are man and woman.

Marriage is clearly not a religious union in the eyes of the State, and yet they apply religion as an excuse if the couple in question happens to have the same genitalia. It's a double-standard that is clearly unfair (and most probably illegal). Needless to say, I am mortified at this "second class citizen" status for same-sex couples.

This is the "land of the free?"


Tracy, sad that they'd take away basic human rights for the sake of re-election.

MIM, I'm just afraid that if the word "marriage" is not in there, then it won't be recognized as such. And, with the loopholes that insurance companies and the government love to take advantage of, the lack of the word would be all the provocation they need to make the benefits non existent. I agree that you cannot take away this property and these rights from these couples. But we are the land of bureaucratic red tape and spin doctoring. Leave it to someone to find a hole in the wording.

Sizzle, thanks. I, too, think it's bullshit that such a line in the sand exists. Now if we could only get a ballsy enough commander in chief to come and wipe the line away.

Regina, I will have to check that link out later on. Thanks.

SJ, never have been separate and never will be.

Dave, never thought about the atheist aspect. Makes it seem even more hypocritical, doesn't it? "Land of the Free"? Catch phrase to lure suckers over here from other countries.


Great post, Kevin. Marriage does not necessarily have religious roots, I think it's good to mention that, too. Women were once treated like property (sadly, they still are in some parts of the world) and were basically "traded" for land, livestock, and/or other forms of currency. Marital unions started this way, I think, and not necessarily as the Bible would have you believe (if you take literal stock in it), wherein Adam and Eve supposedly shared the first "marriage" and that marriage is a religious institution that must be blessed by God. Hogwash. Further to Dave's comments, interestingly enough, Hublein and I were married in a church because it's one of the most beautiful and old buildings in our city, but we're not Christians and that didn't matter. So why should it matter if someone is hardwired to love/be attracted to someone of the same sex? All of this said, I think it's important that churches be protected from having to perform a ceremony they don't believe in - while I may not agree with it, that is their right, too.


Jay Leno had a funny comment last night, with this whole GWB brou haha. Apparently a recent poll said that 51% of Americans support gay marriage. While Bush's approval rating is in the 30% range I believe. So he said, "So gay marriage has more support than Bush!". Hahah I thought that was pretty funny. Good post.


I loved the post! It's so ridiculous to impose a ban on a person's ability to marry who they want. Who is the President or Congress to say who people can marry? For me, this is one of the most infuriating issues facing our country today.


You have already read my posting on this. Thank you everyone for your support.


Three weeks ago my cousin and her partner had a "commitment ceremony." It was certainly lovely and joyful and a reason to celebrate... but the sense that it just wasn't enough was palpable. I wonder what Barbra Bush was teaching her son. I always learned to treat others like I would want to be treated. I want to be treated as a full citizen with equal rights ... including marriage. Why shouldn't my cousin, who was raised in almost exactly the same way I was, have the same rights?


See, the problem is, we "forward thinking" individuals see marriage as being about love, when really, in fact, the religious right wants it to be all about procreation - in there mind, you need marriage to make sex okay and thus keep the population going, hence only male/female marriage.

If marriage was really about love, as I think it should be, it wouldn't matter who is getting married or where they get married, or how they marry, it would just be about these two people who love each other and want to celebrate that love. Instead it's a legal thing, and a religious thing. Hopefully entered into because of love, but not always.

and i have to run to a meeting, so i hope that was semi-coherent....

(brillant post, by the way...)


Kristina, I agree that churches can turn down a marriage and should be able to. I think they even do it now in all honesty. Some have standards set up so they can choose. The Catholic church is one such institution. While I also don't agree, it's their right. But I think most churches would not shy away from it because it's money. And as I said about money...

jackt, God knows I've supported gay marriage longer and more fervently than I ever would President Bush. So count me in there.

Elaine, ticks me off to no end as well.

Mikey, anytime.

Bre, my wife went to a commitment ceremony for her cousin back in September while I was in Florida for my grandma's 80th birthday. She walked away feeling the same thing: like there should be something more and that they wanted something more, but couldn't.

Suze, thanks. Yes, your comment was quite coherent and makes a very good point. A lot of marriages are not entered for love. Sad that people would go to those lengths for insurance/tax/etc. breaks, but they do.


But....but...allowing homer-sexual marriages affects every God-fearin' hedro-sexual in Amurika, dang-nabit! If I was to see a same sex relationship in public, the homo-fairy rays that are emitted by such an unholy union might turn me into a homer-sexual on the spot and before you knew it I'd be burning churches and killing babies! You see, if we allow same sex marriages, it means we're all doomed! It'll be the apocolypse!!! /sarcasm off

People who don't want to see this for what it is (the new civil rights movement) will be judged one day for the bigoted views that they chose to have.


In many other countries, people have the choice of having two ceremonies -- the civil one and the religious one. If they choose to have a religious ceremony, they still have to do the civil one because the religious one is not legally binding as far as property is concerned. This is the way I think that it should be in the U.S. Everyone who wants to be married goes through the civil ceremony and get all of the legal benefits that the state affords married people. If they have any particular religious affiliation, then they can do the religious ceremony as well.

Also, speaking of the civil rights movement, it wasn't that long ago that people of different races could not marry one another in many states.


EXACTLY!!!! 30 years from now our children will look back on this generation and shake their heads in disgust at those who opposed gay rights just as we now look back in disgust at those who supported segregation, etc.


I'm with you... The state should never try to regulate what is in your heart. Love and the law never mi,x and shouldn't... Time will tell over here too...


Haven't we put up with religion screwing things up long enough? I mean really. They had a couple thousand years to get it right. Now step aside and let somebody give it a whack.

Faith and religious beliefs are one thing. Using them to control people is quite another.


Alabama just passed an amend. to ban gay marriage. Nice! Not!

Religion isn't the problem here. The whack jobs that follow religion are the problem. They forgot that they should "SPREAD THE WORD" not "FORCE THE WORD."


Dustin and Dagny, but if history is any indication, even after they've been made to look like asses, pockets of them will always be around and spread their venom to their own children so the intolerance never truly ends. But they'll be good for a few laughs.

Bec, same debates across the pond, eh?

Chanakin, and you would think 2,000+ years would be enough time. Apparently not.

MIM, I like the last sentence. Great job on that one!


Can't ever get rid of all the zealots, but in smaller numbers they just serve to bear witness as past craziness.


Wouldn't it be nice to think we may at some point in the future live in a world where we would actually have to point and laugh at the few remaining zealots as proof that we, as a country, once lived with that level of stupidity? I'd love it.


There's a case going on at the moment that people are watching carefully... Will the right thing be done?


Rarely ever. But one can hope. I can't believe the vote here in the U.S. was as close as it was... 49-48. Thankfully, it needed 60 votes to pass in the Senate. Goes to the House of Representatives next. Also expected to be shot down there.

The comments to this entry are closed.