Before Congress Does It...

I want to try and define "marriage." This isn't anything but a survey, and I cheated, and thank you to the people at Bible Gateway. Nice Scripture Search Engine. Anyway, we gotta get this down. If I'm going to be a repository of fodder and ammunition my liberal, warrior friends, then so be it. All you need to do is ask ANY CHRISTIAN OR JEW where in the Bible marriage, down to the cermony, is defined. I'm pretty sure so far, in my research, that it isn't.

But the bachelor party is biblical! Here's the short end of it, and it's a short verse. At midnight, a bell rang and a herald cried out for everybody to come and meet the groom. A party perceived is a party acheived.

Okay, that's cool. That's sort of like when I used to play poker, and my Christian buddy said that gambling is okay, it's the derilict life that's the problem. He was right on both accounts. And when I asked him if it was biblical, he pointed out that Jesus chose a disciple by drawing lots. Gambling's gambling. Correctamundo.

I also learned in my research, that the concept of the wedding gown, the wedding gift, and the dowry are all biblical. You even had to have witnesses. All right there. But no real definition. No vows. Now it starts to get a little hazier. If there are no vows other than the old Catholic vows sort of grandfathered in, then it's not as clear. Worse, the Old Testament 100% screws things up. Multiple wives, buying wives, buying multiple wives (sale!), kidnapping wives (apparently usually they were pretty good about just kidnapping one wife...nice), taking wives as a spoil of war. Hmmmm. Of course, religious scholars are going to point out that the marriage rite was laid out in documents other than the Talmud, and Cristian "scholars" will be like, "Yeah, what that guy said." I did find out that contracts were sealed by taking off shoes (like Kruschev!). So that's talmudic law. Am I supposed to capitalize that? Talmudic?

Now yeah, it doesn't say there were ever two guys or two girls married, but it also never, apparently says that a marriage needs to be a product of love. Something we have taken for granted, but only in about the last hundred years. Before that, we might as well have been trading daughters for cattle. You know it. I know it.

And don't bring up the seed spilling deal. Man oh man, do we spill some seed. Yeah you too, you sanctimonious seed flinger!

Worse, how about the selective breeding and coupling of slaves. Not just our slaves. Slaves existed before America. It's always been a pretty crappy gig. Yeah. We have a pretty spotty history as far as defining what a marriage is. And it's a 5000+ year old tradition. All I'm saying is that we're talking about people that are doing something out of love. It's not some secret pagan ritual, their unholy bond written on an altar in your child's entrails. You know what? Even if you say they can't make each other legally they're still married. I'm making this a sequel to the pledge post. It's the same argument! You can't make somebody be sincere. Well you can't make them not sincere either. Amend away, pricks.

P.S., We know it's just a ploy to steal another election, but there's something bigger at stake here. It's the Constitution. If GOD didn't see fit to define it, why can you? Even trying to amend it is your legacy. Some appropriations bill will be forgotten, but you are choosing something hilarious and permanent. Yeah, in a hundred years everybody is going to know you were afraid of gay people. To you, they were worse than terrorists.

P.P.S., We know you're saving the flag burning amendment for 2008. Bring it. You're already burning the effing Constitution. Why not wrap it in a flag and make it a burrito. Oh yeah. The Mexicans.

P.P.P.S., I know I never defined marriage. Am I better than God, the Constitution and a couple of dudes in love? Not so far.