Practice makes perfect, except when it never will

Four years ago I woke up, turned on the news, and watched in drop-jawed amazement that two women were getting married at City Hall. Not just civil unioned, or committed to each other, but honest-to-blog married! As the reporting continued telling the story of how the couple, together for more than 50 years, now enjoying their golden years side by side, were the first same-sex couple to marry in California, I could feel the emotion starting the rise in my throat as my eyes began to well up. It was finally happening! It was unbelievable! It was moving! The love we could feel for someone the same gender as ourselves was finally being recognized as legitimate and equal to that of straight folks. It gave me hope. And it turned my thoughts to the possibility that I might be married one today too, and that perhaps I should get working on making myself more marriage material. What followed was nothing short of a media circus.

Of course, all this civil equality flying around airwaves was bound to attract the attention of a certain group of dangerous and hateful people — the Christian Reich, natch — and it wasn't long until they were doing all they could to restore the civil wrongs and unequality they were more comfortable with. Their favorite argument for why non-heteros should not be allowed to get married is that it would be a violation of the holy institution of marriage that God* sets forth in the Bible. (*It should be noted that God has never actually put pen, pencil, quill, or any other writing implement for that matter, to any type of receiving media. Nope, not even a dictaphone.) No, the words in the Bible were written by men based on what God told them. Of course, writers never embellish, or impart their own ideas to the prose they write, which is why the Fiction section at Barnes & Nobel is really filled with non-fiction books; turns out the word "non" is very costly to produce so most bookstores only buy a couple and rely on the customer to figure out what's going on. And God was not exact the editor-in-chief of the final Bible — which by the way, does anyone know which of all the hundreds of "versions" of the Bible is the one that is actually 100% Deity Approved? Just wondering incase I ever wind up on Jeopardy, or stuck trapped in an elevator with the Almighty…you know, so we'll have something to talk about — it's not like any of the multitude of writers ever had to turn in their drafts for spelling/grammer checks, edits, and approvals. Have you actually read the Bible? There's things in there that today we realize are discriminatory and unfair. But I digress. Actually I may need to digress twice after that whole thing just now.

OK, so the Christian Reich was complaining that gays were going to destroy the institution of marriage. Hmmm…you mean like the heteros already did? Let's look at the word that gets thrown around the most: institution. The dictionary (or a dictionary, since like the Bible, there's many a version, and I'm too lazy to be more specific) defines it as "an established law, practice, or custom." Well, here on earth, humans make/enforce the law, so there's strike one against that defense. Practice? Well, I often hear how hard marriage can be and that it's it requires constant work to get right…some might go far as to say it takes practice. Strike two. The last one is custom…which is really just a fancy way of explain a societal habit, and we all know that there's both good and bad habits, so…. Well, by my scorecard, that would be strike three. But lets say the for the sake of argument that it really can be considered an institution, and one that in today's world could even be deemed "holy." Maybe they've got a case with that…and if you ignored the divorce rate here (around 40% on average) you might be on to something. Now I've been to many weddings in my life, and all of them have had something in common…the vows. Sure they get phrased differently, but at heart they all say the same thing. Yet hundreds of thousands of people of all kinds of faiths file for divorce. So right there I have a hard time accepting that people get married because it's a holy institution. And what about atheists? Or Buddhists? Or any other faith that doesn't follow the Christian Bible as part of its doctrine? They can get married. And don't even get me started on Vegas…drive through window at the wedding chapel anyone? Heck, you don't even need to be sober to get married! So really, let's put down the word "holy" and back away slowly. Clearly it's just being wielded as a word weapon to scare the government from getting involved and making things fair. I'm sure the people who are raising a stink against gay marriage would be just as happy if the government made slavery legal again and took away a woman's right to vote.

But the government is involved in marriage. You have to get a marriage license for the city, state, country, world to recognize that you and your spouse are, um, spouses. You taxes are filed differently than single folk. And you get to register for gifts you want people to buy you that you'll use once and then forget about in the back of the cupboard until you're dividing up your possessions post divorce proceedings. Ok, that last one doesn't have anything to do with government.j

So where does that leave us? It leaves me wondering why heteros are so hyped up on the whole marriage thing if it's not really a holy institution that will be torn apart should gay people be allowed to join in. Gay people are expected to make do with civil unions, like it's something special just for us. Well, if it's so special, why aren't more straight people civil unioning it up? At least then they won't be tearing apart their own holy institution with their infidelities, spousal abuse, or boredom, right? But still marriage is a big deal to straighties, so there must me something more to getting married than meets the eye, or the press release of the anti-gay marriage activist group.

But the same-sex marriages performed four years ago were eventually nullified prompting legal action in attempt to restore that brief moment of equality. Days, weeks, months, years passed. And then, today, the headlines we've been hoping for, but never knowing for sure it would happen…"California Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban" Once again I found myself watching the news, heartwarming stories of long-time loves, the promise equality. But this time it was different. Almost immediately I felt my cynical side step in. Maybe it's because part of me is expecting history to repeat itself and watch this get dragged back to court only to have the ban reinstated. Maybe it's because part of me is apprehensive that all gay marriages are going to be studied under a microscope and every little flaw or defect is going to be publicly denounced (while straight celebs book appearances on the late night talkshow circuit to talk about their ex-boy/girlfriend, their new boy/girlfriend, and, if time permits, their pending divorce). Or maybe it's because I'm doubtful that love can last longer than a lifetime…I'm not sure if I can love someone that long anymore. Aside from that couple on the news four years ago, the gay community doesn't exactly have role models to look to. Then again, I'm not sure it's much better over in heteroville either…I'm looking at you, Britney Spears.

Well, what as going to be just a short bit of reminiscing turned into my brain puking it guts out until it was left dry heaving on the tile floor of the interweb. Sorry for that. But my point is, and I do have one, is that restricting marriage to one group of people because another group might mess it up (or worse, set a higher standard for the first group to live up to) is just stupid. Marriage is not a perfect anything, and all the practice in the world won't make it perfect. It all comes down loving another person so much that you want to legally bind yourself to them for as long as you both shall live. As in forever. Or if you're a celebrity, at least 20 minutes.