I read something this week that really got my blood boiling. In a January 18 op-ed piece for the Los Angeles Times, William Bennett wrote, “Marriage is about many things, but it primarily ties together three purposes: protecting women, domesticating men and raising children.” He uses this argument for encouraging Republicans to support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Now, maybe I have a different perspective on this subject – I’m from California, I am socially liberal, and, oh yeah, both my parents are gay.

Here’s my take on what is threatening the “institution of marriage.”
1. Infidelity
2. Money problems (jobless recovery, gambling)
3. Dealing with children on drugs
4. Heterosexuals not taking marriage seriously (Bennifer, Brittany Spears)

My father has been with his partner for 14 years. My mother has not been so lucky in love, but has been with her partner for 18 months. Would I feel threatened if my dad decided to walk down the aisle? Would you feel threatened if my mom decided to register at Macy’s?

I fully support a church’s decision not to sanctify a marriage. I do not, however, agree that we need to politicize something that one cannot change about themselves. Would the world really go to hell in a hand basket if homosexual unions were to pass?

I know there is the argument about the world becoming more permissive – gratuitous violence and sex on movies screens, lyrics about hate, “celebrities” arrested for rape and child molestation, etc. – is a valid one. But what is wrong about love? As long as it’s between two consenting adults, do we really care? Should we really care?

As the Bohemians said in Moulin Rouge, “The greatest give you will ever have is just to love and be loved in return.”