As Miss California USA likes to define it: gay marriage v. "opposite" marriage

I promised you conflicting views regarding my thoughts on marriage. I've shown  you I'm quite conservative with regard to my thoughts of the actual institution of marriage....but I'm completely and utterly liberal when it comes to the applicability. You see, I don't see how being gay makes any difference when it comes to honoring marriage vows. I don't see how offering them the same rights as us people wanting to engage in "opposite marriage" would degrade the institution at all--our divorce rate is already 50% and I'm pretty sure gay people are just as capable as the straights as having loving, monogamous, life-long marriages. So, why do I think the whole gay marriage argument is a drain on our resources when we could be focusing our considerable energies elsewhere? Let me explain....

First and foremost, marriage is not strictly a religious commitment. A wedding can be a religious ceremony, but people have been getting married far before the dawn of Christianity ever presumed to classify marriage as having religious ties. Marriage has a colorful and sometimes ridiculous history, and much of it is inapplicable today. It used to be people married for economic reasons. In many cultures, women were treated as chattel, and were often given to the highest bidder or the person with the most beneficial familial ties. Apparently, though, (from my hurried reading on the subject) the engagement ring seems to present across the board--from as far back as ancient Rome, it was thought that the roundness symbolized eternity, or a union that would last forever. It was also thought that the left finger (the "ring finger") had a vein that ran directly to the heart. Perhaps most significant, and what I think renders the religious fundamentalists' arguments moot, is the fact that even if people are married in a church, they still are not recognized as married by the state until they fill out the paperwork and make it official. The eyes of God and the eyes of the law are completely different beasts, people.

Apparently, same-sex unions do have a long history, and it is believed that such unions were celebrated in ancient Greece and Rome, some regions of China, and ancient Europe. According to Wiki (my favoritest source, y'all), "The first documented same-sex marriage was between the two men Pedro Díaz and Muño Vandilaz in the Galician municipality of Rairiz de Veiga in Spain on April 16, 1061. They were married by a priest at a small chapel. The historic documents about the church wedding were found at Monastery of San Salvador de Celanova.^[60]"

 Many people compare denying gay people the right to marry to the now antiquated (and thankfully so) taboo that used to be associated with interracial marriage. It's true: many of the same arguments the anti-gay marriage movement is using are the same arguments advanced two hundred and fifty years ago...and even less than fifty years ago regarding interracial marriage.  "The children stand to lose" or "the Bible says it is abominable" or "it's unnatural" or (my personal favorite) "it's against the law." Now, with one in every 15 marriages deemed as interracial, a lot of people have forgotten these arguments. I, unfortunately, have heard them as recently as a few years ago, because I come from a small town of often uneducated people.

I guess what I'm trying to say is I sincerely hope that the Supreme Court of the United States holds laws against gay marriage as unconstitutional. Arkansas has already gone a step in the right direction when it held that the laws regarding gay people adopting were unconstitutional. I'm hoping I can one day tell my children how gay people were refused this right, and they be shocked and disbelieving. I hope for a future people are allowed to marry the person they love, regardless of whether they are the same sex as them.

I hope for a future where "gay marriage" and "opposite marriage" don't exist....just marriage does.