If you're a regular reader of my blog, by now you're likely aware of California's gay marriage ban, tempers are flaring, opinions are mounting, and once again I feel it has become incumbent of me to save America from it's citizens.
The crux of the debate is this, homosexuals feel that their not being allowed to marry is discrimination and folks belonging to various religious groups feel that marriage is a sacred act and thus should be subject to their rules. Now smarter people than I have made points that marriage might not be so sacred, but that argument leads to problems. Marriage is steeped in fairly universal traditions and rituals, a ring, a white dress, a kiss, some glass tapping, the details vary but they're ritual, and every ritual is sacred to someone. To say that rituals are not necessarily sacred opens up a can of worms that no one here wants to go fishing with and marriage is obviously a ritual, so therefore it's not up for contention that those who say 'marriage is a sacred act' have a valid point.
However, divorce is not so sacred. Divorce is the right of all married Americans given to them by law, and it is exercised by a great many of them. In 2005 over half of the marriages performed resulted in a divorce, there is no ritual to a divorce, no religious pomp and circumstance, simply legal proceedings.
Gays and lesbians have been denied the right to divorce by the California government, and while the constitution does not list divorce as one of the inalienable rights and freedoms granted to all it's citizens, it does say that people are allowed to be secure in their own persons free from discrimination as long as they break no laws.
Homosexual acts are not a crime in America, being homosexual is not illegal, so why are gays not free to lose half like everyone else? This is State sanctioned discrimination based on religious bias which violates several of the core principles the United States Constitution was founded upon. These days the constitution seems like more of a pirates code of vague "guidelines" than the foundation for the laws of a great nation, but I still take it seriously and believe it should be adhered to, and when push comes to shove I believe the American people are with me in that belief. Therefore, if this gay divorce ban is to hold and be constitutional, homosexuality needs to be outlawed.
As long as Americans are not willing to make homosexuality illegal, this gay divorce ban is outright unconstitutional discrimination and gays have an obligation to protest it, which puts everyone who doesn't really care for the homosexual lifestyle in a tough spot because they are the ones who pushed for this ban. Their actions are only stirring the pot and bringing the thing they abhor out and in their faces, whereas if they could swallow their pride and compromise the whole issue would just go away and they wouldn't be confronted by it. But there are principles at stake here.
The solution is in the etymology. Marriage is a word that carries a lot of meaning, like Christmas; it has religious significance even though it is used to refer sometimes to acts that are not religious in nature. The answer is in creating a new word. In the case of Christmas, the Jews say "Hanukah" and the Atheists say "Ski Trip".
Thus, the solution to this entire issue is so simple that the fact that no one has implemented it means that I deserve a Nobel Peace Prize. Instead of using the term "marriage" when referring to a gay or lesbian civil union, it should henceforth be called "Matching Mudflaps".