And, a gay friend of his who worked for an airline had listed him as his significant other. The visitor then got to fly free on standby whenever he wanted to.

It was explained to me that there was no sexual relationship between the two men, and it was a total ruse. I saw nothing that would have led me to believe the guy was gay.

Seemed to work.

Personally, I have no objection to gay marriage as long as they don’t have sex with each other. Well, maybe just once to consummate, but that’s all.

Then, one day, “civil union” was brought into play, and this innocuous, straight forward, already an accepted legal term, received further harassment. Why? “Civil union” sought to bypass all the religious issues by going strictly public, as couples (men and women) have done for centuries, in stories generally to get around a parent’s self-righteous objections to a formal marriage, which magistrates had no problem granting, for what is a community if there is no adventure in its history?

Through the recent decades, the now subdued arguments between “marriage” and “civil union” pressed on, in the courts, and occasionally in the media. We are now at the vital crossroads that all legal rulings must one day face; “The Final Judgment.”

The argument I started out with here, between the terms “marriage” and “civil union,” which I was sure long ago would solve all the problems faced by the same-sex communities, stepped boldly into our judicial system and promptly faded into all that beautiful mahogany woodwork. The church (whichever church that might still be), is now being attacked for its long-standing Biblical interpretation of the term “marriage” — that whole “union between a man and a woman”-thing, yadda-yadda, and so forth. There remain a few more rutty roads to cross in this one, b, but I believe we are nearing the end of the legal battles. It will soon return to the public streets, hopefully without the past violence. I think the public is about as ready to accept it all as it can be — at least from a Middle American POV.

Cheers.

AND, to ignore “love”, the sense of attachment in the eyes of the community and themselves, the feeling of belonging and devotion, those are all possible without marriage and yet seem to be enhanced when it’s there for all the world to see and the legal system to recognize.

To ignore, denigrate, minimize the “love” aspect is to do yourself a disservice. And one wonders how someone could be so blind as to ignore the liberal sense of fairness in this adjustment to our society. My guess is that it’s a bad day for you and you’re trying to pick a fight with a poor, defenseless, sick old man. A pathetic wretch of a person, on their last legs, unable to string two neurons together, one step away from “The Home”, who forgets. That’s all, forgets. Can’t remember what I forget.

The real reason gays want to marry is for the same reasons straights do, to establish contractual obligations that determine how a partnership is going to manage its joint affairs. It is for mutual self protection under the law, and to establish the civil regulations that have attached themselves to the institution. Establishment of a life-time partnership means things like taxes, insurance, inheritance, children, debt etc have to be managed differently. Love has nothing to do with it. I’m not saying love is irrelevant, just that it has nothing to do with marriage.

As for the modern liberal/conservative connotations that have attached themselves to this issue, they are meaningless. Each side just loves to see the other get all hot and bothered.

Think about it. There are perfectly good justifications for same-sex marriage even amongst completely heterosexual individuals.

Still offended? Good for you. I’m glad I was able to help.