Let me blunt straight out. I completely favor the rights of gay people to get married and have the same legal protections us heterosexuals have. I can think of absolutely zero reasons why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. In addition, I have heard absolutely zero reasons explained to me why gay marriage should be prohibited that do not eventually come down to religion and tradition (and when those are your planks, your outdated way of thinking is on the out). That's just sad. When Christianity was formed it was such a radical, zany idea. Love and respect they neighbor. Don't cast the first stone. Or the second or third for that matter. Funny how that has changed. Now we support a militant regime in Israel (and the Palestinians are no better either), invade foreign nations (see Iraq and Iran in the next year), and repress our own people because they do not fit into the world view of our state religion and flag waving public.

I don't know. I set down to write this little piece of the rights of others, and of course it brings to the surface so many feelings and emotions. How can a person possibly be against the rights of others to marry and have legal protections that make their lives more like those of first-class citizens? Are we really that afraid as a country to extend that olive branch? Like gays and lesbians don't have it hard enough as it is? Do they really need an amendment prohibiting them from having their love and livestyle accepted?

And shame on you George Bush for advocating an amendment that limits the rights of others. Quite a far cry from not abridging the rights of others toward free speech, freedom of the press and religion, isn't it. When you look at yourself in the mirror, how can you be proud of a discrimatory piece of garbage? Great job there buddy, you are actually motivating me to vote for the first time in my life. Just not for you and your extremely narrow, shallow, and unintelligent platforms. (But I don't doubt there are plenty of other redneck folks who love your ideas. Feel free to have their votes. I wouldn't want them anyway.)

Which leads me to this idea: why even have religious marriage ceremonies as the matter of course? What if we were to adopt a two part marriage system? Since our marriage licenses come from the government and not a religious body, why not have the first ceremony be completely secular? Folks can just pay their X amount of dollars to the state of Y and have the legal rights accorded to all married couples. Then if people choose to, they can have a second ceremony in the church(es) of their choice. Leave that ceremony up to the discretion of the people getting married and their relgious beliefs, along with those of the marrying church.

Not a bad compromise I say. I wonder what Matt Bekelja would say about it.