there was a tiny little article on boston.com this morning about our neighbors to the north (new hampshire) voting on gay marriage today.
while california may have put gay marriage on a string and then yanked it back, at least it's still alive and well in two states, MA and CT. i was excited when i saw earlier this week that vermont was wrestling with upping their trailblazing civil union legislation a big pink notch to full marriage. and then today's news snippit re: NH... how great would it be if new england (and possibly *all* of it) managed to show the rest of the country how to be forward-thinking? (we won't wait on rhode island, since everyone knows it's just connecticuts's unsightly spare appendage, no one likes to aknowledge it exists... but i've seen it).
well, i was feeling all content until i got to this line of the article-ette, which then pissed me off:
'Opponents argue same-sex marriage is morally wrong and would cheapen marriage.'
i couldn't care less about the morality stuff. that arguement really is looking a little lame these days and just sounds like a lot of born-again-noise from someone with a stripped down chevy 'flowerbox' up on blocks in their front yard.
but same-sex marriage would cheapen marriage? cheapen it? oh you know, you're right. we would't want to tarnish all those most sacred of breeder matrimonial customs- drive through vow exchanges in vegas, garter tosses (because that's sanitary), plastic fountains gurgling pink champagne, mashing cake into the face of your partner (ok, i like that part), and the ever klassy reception line dancing. so much to cherish. so much on the line. i can see why they've got their republican-issued falwell-blessed knickers in a queerbunch.