California's Prop 8, an amendment to restrictively define marriage between a man and a woman, has been declared unconstitutional. Yay us, but...
The obvious face of this is the definition of the word, and how the individual and society perceives it. The hidden face is that one side doesn't want to afford the other side a right to be publicly and officially recognized as a forever-joined couple in love. But, we sure are wasting a lot of activist energy on trying to grab a golden ring of power that is labeled "marriage" — when we should be funneling our collective passion for equality on the basic right to be publicly and officially recognized as a forever-joined couple in love. Do we really, really need "marriage?" Do we not seek the state, federal and individual rights that come with such unions?
The way I see it, whether it was a religious thing or a cultural thing that blew up into the world, "marriage" was originally conceived for the purpose of "blessing" a man and a woman to have children. It wasn't about love; it was about being approved to mate for optimal baby makin' output. That was then, when the population was like 8. Now, we're in the multi-billions, and the right to produce children is no longer exclusively afforded to optimal-output heterosexual couples, and anyone may add their DNA to the very murky pool.
