Comment: Didn't mean to be rude, just

(See in situ)

Didn't mean to be rude, just

trying to empower you with truth--albeit highly unpopular truth.

(I suppose my common law wife and I are insanely "super-liberal" with this issue....)

People become so "rubbed the wrong way" and even aggressive when one questions the Institution of Legal Marriage. In medieval times marriage was often simply a promise between two people. Why is that not enough? Is that not a spiritual event in and of itself? Cannot that happen just as purely and wonderfully before one's creator / deity / Mother Earth / etc.? (And WTF, hetero legal marriage is a shambles anyway, right? Look at the divorce rate, for Christ's sake! Their poor record does / has done far more harm to our society and its children, etc. than any threat of gays marrying would introduce. Ah, the hypocrisy!)

Why all the hubbub and the expenditure and the Vera Wang dress and Uncle Scam stamping a new tax status on your forehead when entering into legal marriage? My Uncle and his husband married of their own accord, without the legal construction. They were a beautiful couple and were happy (Sadly, my uncle's husband passed on, however.). A little living will prep is not prohibitively expensive (You may even spend more on your legal marriage through taxes over time.), and it IS forever / WILL last through everyday of your marriage, right? Because you've set up a documented legal framework for inheritance / D-N-R medical issues / right of attorney / etc.

Listen, please don't take offense at what I say. You must do what makes you happy. Live your dream and fight for it. I appreciate that, and I'm sorry that my occasional cynicism comes off perhaps abrasively. Clearly the marriage issue is one of discrimination. And that is wrong. I support equality, and thus your plight; I just want people to know that marriage--*real* marriage--can in fact be defined between two people who love each other and doesn't have to be accomplished through institutional channels, organized Houses of Mythologies, or anything else. Gitcha your friends and fam and have at it!

This will interest you: Somewhat off topic, but at my lady's former place of employment (big, national chain restaurant which I won't name) benefits WERE extended to un-legally-married partners of employees in same-sex relationships, but WERE NOT extended to un-legally-married partners of employees in hetero relationships! Read it again, please. This to me opens a whole new frontier of prejudice and the appropriate battle against it. So this effort to include people in same-sex relationships in benefits coverage (a good thing) reveals a prejudice toward / disapproval of "we-hetero-lovers-who-are-too-lazy-to-get-married / faking-it / not-serious-and-should-get-married-legally / etc. / blah blah blah...." I find it mildly comical, honestly. I am GLAD that same-sexers are being covered, but is not the inequity apparent here?


What would the Founders do?