Some readers may be offended by the use of strong language and large doses of liberal thinking. If you are offended by strong language in support of allowing other human beings to share and enjoy what have been considered basic human rights in our culture for umpteen hundred years, then stop reading, go back to your cave, and meditate on how dark everything is when you turn off the lights . . . but whatever you do, while alone in your darkness, no touching yourselves.

This whole anti-gay anti-polygamy anti-anythiing stuff is a whole lot of bullshit wrapped in a nice clean wrapper . . . Anti-Polygamy Group Opposes Anti-Gay Marriage Amendement Because it May Help Polygamists. Utah’s s-called Marriage Amendment is an effort to reinforce anti-gay marriage laws. Now, the interesting thing is that a number of anti-polygamy proponents are saying that opening gay marriage is going to mean opening polygamy . . . Johnathan Turley’s insightful essay Polygamy Laws Expose Our Own Hypocrisy shows how that thinking may be very justified as the realization that our anti-polygamy laws are based upon simple religious bias and nothing else is qutie persuasive . . . there are already laws in place to handle the other so-called abuses of polygamy as anti-polygamy laws offer no extra protection, merely religious persecution.

Well, the anti-gay marriage folks and the anti-polygamy folks usually sleep in the same bed – the bed of religous bigotry which has nice comfy covers and a lot of room to fit an entire plethora of idjits in between the sheets to cover their dark and dirty thoughts, a veritable orgy of repressed oppression – however, the anti-polygamists have found something troubling in the wording of the amendment:

”Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman. No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent effect.”

So, the law says that marriage is only recognized if it’s between a man and a woman (note the singular nouns). Here’s the kicker, the last part about not recognizing any other union as marriage.

Now, sensible and reasonable opponents to the law will recognize this is just an attempt to keep gays from having the legal right to marry. The conservatives and moderates who should know better are afraid that if gays marry then the whole institution of marriage will fall apart. This is not the case, it’s been falling apart well enough on its own without any homophobic influence. Actually, by allowing gays to marry, it will most likely have a positive influence on that sector of the population, offering a new perspective of permanence and protection within longterm relationships. Whether gays can or cannot marry has nothing to do with anyone else’s right to marry.

Now a number of opponents to the marriage law note that the part about not recognizing any other union will disrupt protections via the common law marriage provisions which currently does recognize that if you live together for a time without legal marriage you are still considered de facto married in terms of property rights and the right to visit loved ones in the hospital and other important considerations. By dropping common law provisions, which this law does, then a lot of folks will lose rights they have had for a long time.

Here’s the kicker. The anti-polygamists are also anti-gay but they fear that the second provision will end up protecting polygamists. You see, most polygamists to not seek a legal wedding or marriage document for any but their first marriage. The others are informal unions. However, the government prosecutes polygamists under the common law marriage provisions. In the Green case which has appealed to the US Supreme Court, Green was not legally married to any of his "wives" nor did he ever claim to be "married", yet prosecutors used common law precedents to claim he was de facto married and therefore a polygamist. Anti=polygamists worry that if the common law provision is dropped, then it will protect the polygamists who are not technically practicing polygamy as they have never sought legal unions.

Hmmmmm. Sniff, sniff, yep, it’s bullshit.

Anti-Gay Marriage laws, Anti-Polygamy laws, they’re part and parcel to the same thing. Religious and cultural bigotry. Gays aren’t given marriage rights because a bunch of conservative, moderate, and even liberal bigots believe homosexualisty is wrong in the sight of the lord (they’re wrong, the scripture does not say what they think it means and even if it did, it should not count as the law of the land . . . if a gay is Christian then he can have guilt about himself and who he is, that’s his perogative, but a non-Christian gay certainly shouldn’t have his human rights removed if he doesn’t want them removed). Yes, I believe the right to marry is a human right . . . not just a priviledge . . . sure, it was a priviledge when the institution was created way back when as a means of protecting property and stengthening unions between powerful families, but I believe we have grown beyond that now and I believe it’s time we moved forward, not backward. Let’s treat all humans with the same basic respect we expect for ourselves. I know it’s hard to believe, but evidently some folks haven’t heard that gays are in fact humans. No, it may seem shocking, but they are not members of a seperate species. Sheesh.

Sure, I believe some religious practices should be regulated by the government. If there is danger to public health and safety or if the practice results in cruelty to humans or animals . . . and public means the folks doing it to . . . so I’m not a fan of snake handling or to animal sacrifice or to cliorectomies or to circumcision or to sewing up vaginas. However, a couple gay men or lesbians showing their deep found love and respect for one another by formallizing their union in marriage is neither cruel or a danger to society. In most states, their bedroom actions are now legal so why shouldn’t their public affirmations of love be legal too? Polygamists likewise are being kept from expressing their religous or personal views because of a religious bigotry mindset (a mindset which is built on presuppositions about how the first century church worked that are in fact rather spurious, Christian monogamy had more to do with the expansion of the church into Northern Europe than it has anything to do with the teachings of Christ).

Okay. Rant over. Someone go tell those folks they can come back out of their caves now . . . although, you might want to knock first as many of them are probably touching themselves again . . . or popping pain pills . . . or seeing prostitutes . . . or playing where’s wally with altar boys . . . as many of these staunch relgious types seem to enjoy. Repression and oppression go hand in hand.