In case you missed it, last week was Marriage Protection Week or Defense of Marriage Week or some other such thing. I know it was official, though, because the Prez said so. Good to know he's on top of solving our most important domestic problems.

Before I go into full-on rant mode, I must confess (once again) that I am opposed to the institution of marriage. Any practice which began as one man buying a woman from another man (back in the day--the Abrahamic day, that is--a man's wealth was directly correlated to the number of wives he penned up in his corral) just doesn't carry much water with me. I know, we got rid of polygamy a few years back, and, for the most part, men don't intentionally treat their wives like chattel, but there are still goofy organizations like Promise Keepers whose public pronouncements (I can't speak for the actual dogma; I'm not an initiate) focus most of their energy into promoting the man as top dog and the woman as submissive supporter. That sort of "progressive" arrangement has a real Virginia Slims ring to it, if you know what I mean.

Yeah, I'm married (got to get my personal hypocrisies out in the open) and happily so. And so I've got one request of all the folks who weep and moan about the prospect of homosexual marriage: Don't defend me. Don't say you're helping my marriage by keeping gays and lesbians from exchanging vows. Don't say you're making the United States a more moral nation by keeping Steve and Steven from getting hitched.

You're not.

As near as I can understand, the chief argument against homosexual marriage is essentially a sexual one--or, more specifically, a procreational one. In particular, some churches are really hung up about the whole MAN + WOMAN = CHILDREN equation. For example, the Catholic church preaches loudly against birth control in countries where women routinely have six or more kids. In situations like that, it's hard to argue with Marx's tilt against religion. This sort of single-minded view of the reasons for marriage can yield very weird results. My wife's aunt (a woman in her late 40s) got married a couple years ago in a Southern Baptist ceremony. I wasn't there, but she told me that the minister made quite a to do about "blessing this marriage with many children." She told me she cut her lip trying to keep from laughing her ass off. I wouldn't be surprised if that goofball says the same stupid thing whenever he marries a couple of folks at the retirement home.

Marriage means different things to different people. There are those who see it as primarily a license to have sex with the blessing of whatever church they attend. There are those who see it as the blending of two lives into one, with all the complicated compromises that entails. There are those who see it strictly as a business deal (whether that be immigration, taxes, you name it). You know something? It doesn't matter why two people are married as long as they feel comfortable with their decision. If it works for them, then great.

There seems to be this belief that allowing homosexuals to marry would demean the "institution." I'm not sure you can run down the institution of marriage any more than Zsa Zsa Gabor or Larry King or (insert your favorite oft-married celebrity here) already have. Despite what some people may think, homosexuals don't do a damned thing to each other that straights haven't tried as well. The "missionary position" is a bit problematic, to be sure, but past that the main difference in bed is a surplus or deficit of penises. And if the only "godly" sex is procreative, well, just about every straight in the world is a multiple sinner. I figure if you haven't gotten all of your orifices defiled by the time you die, you're just not trying hard enough.

There is also the theological argument that as homosexuals routinely "sin" (and here we're talking specifically about gays, as the Bible doesn't say a thing about lesbians), they should not be allowed the privilege of holy matrimony. If that's what your church says, then burn it down. Or, if you're not feeling quite so frisky, simply leave and join a non-Neanderthal congregation. There are plenty of "normal" churches which recognize same-sex unions (and plenty of preachers who are happy to bless such commitments). So, once again, the problem comes back to this Defense of Marriage Act nonsense and other such political gimmicks.

It's rare to see such a display of naked bigotry from the majority of our nation's leaders. The essence of the political argument against homosexual marriage is "We don't like these people and we don't want to be identified with them, so we won't let them in our club." I'm not saying there needs to be some gay Lee Elder situation, a symbolic gay marriage that everyone can accept. That would be playing to the illogic of the bigots. But it is time for straight people to take offense at the cheapening of marriage by these dolts who claim to defend it. My marriage isn't a vessel for procreation. It isn't a license to have sex. It isn't an acceptable "family" portrait to present to society. It's more than anyone (including me) can fully understand. That's the beauty of marriage, and no one, not even a billion homosexual married couples, can take that away.

Marriage Protection Week? More like Bigot Awareness Week. Let's go hunt us some hatemongers.

Jon Worley has little tolerance for the intolerant.