Gay marriage: more legalistic and twisted semantics
Love Means Nothing
Love is just a score if you happen to be talking about tennis; otherwise it means a lot.
There are many kinds of love. There is religious love. There is romantic love. There is parental love. Then there is gay love, which I suppose is a subdivision of romantic love. There is brotherly love. There is sisterly love. Then there is marital love. Each type of love is important enough that people have been willing to die for it. But only marital love is recognized by God and the state.
A Biblical translation commands us to “go forth and multiply." The government agrees so completely with this command that if you obey, you will get a tax break for each child. Why is this important? Let’s look at Mr. and Mrs. Farmer. If they don’t go forth and multiply, there won't be replacement Farmers to grow crops. If Mr. and Mrs. Truck Driver aren’t fruitful, produce won't get to market. And if Mr. and Mrs. Baker aren’t fruitful, we won't have bread. These unscientific examples, though simplistic, anticipate an economic axiom: demography is destiny. They also provide fodder for the Law of Unanticipated Consequences.
The gay community wishes to have their unions recognized as marriage. Why? There are only two plausible reasons: (1) recognition by God, and, (2) tax breaks. They may be disappointed on at least one count and probably two. Gays cannot go forth and multiply, and gay couples, although loved by God, will not be recognized by God as married.
Regarding the government's recognition (i.e. tax breaks), I doubt if gay couples will be granted the same benefits as heterosexual married couples for two reasons: (1) Their union does nothing to benefit society, and (2) Under the equal protection clause of the Constitution, I believe that If the government were to recognize gay marriage, the Supreme Court would be forced to extend those same benefits to all loving couples living together, be they mother and daughter, brother and sister or sister and sister. This will engender more legalistic and twisted semantics to get around the fact that non-heterosexual unions can bear no more fruit than 'Love' in a tennis match. And, we all know that means nothing