Marry me...

I've fallen off the wagon here.

August rolled in, and I thought that I should re-commit myself to one entry a day, or every two days if need be. So far, I haven't done so well...but I've got an excuse. I was away in Ottawa this long weekend, so sadly I couldn't sit and write. Even more sad, I brought my camera with me, having the intention to post some pictures, but I forgot to take it while we were hanging out in the downtown and near Parliament. So sad...

Tonight was my first uptake of the news since I left, and it surprised me to see that Ontario Member of Provincial Parliament George Smitherman got married this weekend. Mr.Smitherman is the 'first openly gay cabinet member', according to the news, and married his boyfriend of a few years on Saturday.

My first reaction was how 'normally' the news portrayed this event, which is reassuring. It said what I would hope one day people say, that he got married. Big deal.

There was no gasps of horror, or choice words to make it seem as though the marriage was a horrible thing, or a beacon of hope for homos across the country. It simply stated he got married. And I loved it.

I've thought a lot about gay marriage these days. Not so much 'gay marriage', but will I get married one day. And the simple answer is, I have no idea.

Even now that I'm coming out, I'll still admit I don't think I'm crazy about gay marriage. Shocked? Well, it seems surprising, even to me. After all, aren't all gay people supposed to want to have the option to marry their lover?

It's not that I don't agree with the idea that same-sex couples should have the same legal status as heterosexual couples do. I know everyone is the same, and deserves the same tax cuts, benefits from employers and recognition that those two people are bonded.

But the whole 'marriage' word...I just don't know if I'd want to marry a guy. To me, marriage does represent the biological commitment of two sexes to procreate. The fact that they get tax benefits or special acknowledgement doesn't really factor into that definition to me, simply because it seems to be all about the nuclear family. That is why I say I am an advocate for all couples who make the formal commitment should receive the same treatment.

I've got the nuclear family thing. A mom, and a dad, and no divorce or separation or anything to disrupt the flow of life from one generation to the next. My parents are married.

It seems to me that two gay men cannot reproduce what is the nuclear family. Of course, they can opt for a surrogate mother, or adoption, or some other means of acquiring a child, but they cannot produce one between themselves. How can they be married if the reason for marriage is to reproduce?

Now I know what you're going to say, that gay parents are great parents and there's nothing wrong with bringing a child up in a gay environment. I agree completely. Whats more, there are so many straight parents who are unfit to raise children (or reproduce at all...) that the idea their marriage is really valid is laughable. I'm definitely on side with the argument that straight families who are broken up, with one or both of the parents MIA, are not good places for children to be raised.

What bothers me about the issue, like so many others, is how dehumanized it gets. It becomes a political discussion instead of a discussion about two people. By my questioning the definition of marriage, I'm instantly labeled a right-winged evil-doer. But it has nothing to do with politics, it's all about two people. Everyone gets so bogged down with the split-second decision that someone is a homophobe, or on the other side, too liberal and pro-everything that it becomes a shouting match. Nobody bothers to step back and ask themselves what they think about the issue, opting to jump on the political bandwagon and support one side or the other.

So you see how very confusing and difficult this issue is for me to both understand and to formulate an opinion on. It's probably the one thing that I don't have a clear-cut opinion on, much less a plan of action about. There are straight families who are wholly unfit to bear and raise children. There are gay couples who would make amazing parents, giving a child a stable and loving upbringing. But does marriage mean two people living in the same tax bracket as two people in a heterosexual relationship, or the ability to, in 'perfect' scenarios, reproduce without outside aid.

I'm really lost on this. I'm all for civil unions, partnerships, whatever. I don't see them as giving gays less rights than straight couples. To me marriage is about the biological aspect of a union. There are certainly questions about equality, and probably people who would see a civil union as being less than marriage itself. I guess I'm just too optimistic about the situation. What I do know is, many people don't like gays in general and it's just a knee-jerk reaction to keep them from marrying. But I'm making my argument on the grounds that people are all as well developed as you and I are, and that the homophobic issues aren't playing a part in the argument.

So convince me otherwise. Make me believe that the definition of marriage means anyone and everyone. Teach me that gay's should be allowed to have marriage. But explain why, other than, "Just because."

And for the love of God, don't hate me because I don't see things the way you do.