By now, we've all seen way too much of this.
But, because it sells air time and copy, we will continue to see more of it. And, because such sales are not based on reason and answer but contention and screaming, the basic facts will rarely, if ever, be presented in any sort of rational fashion.
Allow me to try.
Throughout human history, the institution of marriage has existed not in the swords and edifices of the Powers That Be (or Were), but in the hearts and souls of the people themselves who lived in whichever time and place they did. More has been written about the evolution of this contract than I can address or even link here. A horribly insufficient nutshell would be to say that marriage has been mankind's way of preventing bastard societies. It's the way families were kept distinct and honorable. No faith can claim sole ownership of the institution, yet the commonalities of it between religions far outweigh any ritual differences. Including, commonly, the fact that marriage has always been between a man and a woman.
It is arrogance to presume otherwise. It is also typical of the Boomer generation to try to redefine another societal construct which has existed intact for millenia, just because they're here now. And, it is ironic that by not leaving well enough alone, they have actually done more harm than good. Golly, that's different.
Just as marriage as a social contract of varying form has existed since humans were sentient enough to realize they were not animals, so have those who - for reasons still not completely understood - would be, shall we say, ineligible for participation. Common vernacular is Homosexual, but that word in and of itself came into being only during the late 19th Century when psychologists were attempting to codify, well, everything. Before then, a host of epithets - some kind, some not so - were used. They need not be dwelt upon further.
Nonetheless, in that people will do what they will do, and in that others will let them provided they pose no threat, it is not surprising that "arrangements" have always existed wherein folks who were more like each other than not cohabitated and formed households of various sorts. It was tacitly understood that they would not, nor could not, be considered married. Yet, it was also acknowledged subrosa that some privileges enjoyed by marrieds could and would be afforded them, given the proof of time and commitment necessary, both to each other and to community.
Those privileges revolved almost entirely around property, which is the central issue of the contemporary contention. It was a given, back before the Boomers decided everything was wrong and they could do it better than the previous 238 generations, that two people who had spent enough time together and been (otherwise?) upstanding members of the community, owned what they owned jointly. This is the basis for "common law" and although those of the same sex could not be declared married - ever - they could still be considered joint owners of their households. This was Civil Society: Not judging lest judgment be made, living and letting live, and knowing that the more there are on this side of the rope, the easier the tug-o-war of life becomes.
Comes now The Sexual Revolution. Had I a time machine, I would go back and do all I could to insure that those responsible for this abomination were never born. But that's another blog yet to be written. When what was inherently accepted to be the bounds of traditional marriage were ripped to shreds, it also killed the capacity to afford others a peaceful and civil allowance of the economic aspects of that tradition. The baby was thrown out with the bathwater. Unfortunately, so was the soap, the bassinet, the towels, the plumbing and the entertainment center.
Part of 'the deal' was that no assumptions would be made that such alternative relationships had any of the moral trappings that traditional, child-rearing marriages had. Perhaps the people in them attended a church, perhps not, but in any event, pretense was neither made nor accepted. Conversely, just as when one member of a traditional marriage was widowed all property went to the surviving spouse, such benefit was afforded the surviving member of the other kind of household. To challenge that was to open a can of worms nobody would ever sort out. It was a sort of corollary to Free Speech - we may not like what everybody is saying, but we must uphold everybody's right to speak lest we all lose our own.
But the stupid Boomers did it anyway. Which is why we now have what we have. AIDS made the death of a partner political. This evolution can be placed squarely at the feet of those who chose to ignore the problem's real cause when it emerged, choosing rather to wield it as both political tool and social statement. Nobody, without exception, died of AIDS because some bureaucrat did not spend enough taxpayer money. They died of AIDS because they refused to stop having sex or injecting drugs with people who already had the disease. It was no surprise, then, that when somebody of some means died, their families would contest the transfer of property to those who they could arguably blame for their loved one's death.
Therefore, what was tacitly accepted before AIDS was utterly and irrevocably destroyed. And, since those responsible for this golem hadn't the common sense in the first place, what did they do to try to salvage their advantages? They decided to go all the way and declare that they, too, could be 'married' just like those who had always been afforded such luxuries. They saw that the marriage contract was the most solid binding of property among two people, and as such they decided it was for them, too, in the face of the resistance they were experiencing. That what they were experiencing was their own fault was irrelevant.
So, those whose moral constitutions would have made them at best grudgingly accepting of such relationships in the past, now had honest reason to take up the fight. Hallowed ground was being trod upon, and the deal was off.
The tragic part of this is that only a very small percentage of what we now refer to as "the gay community" is causing all this uproar. The vast majority would be perfectly thrilled to go back to the way things were before. However, since TV and Newspapers don't sell their products by concentrating on reason and concord, such voices will never be heard. In-your-face fearmongering is the order of the day in the so-called popular media.
And so, the jist of all of this is very simple, and it follows the path that so many other issues and upheavals have in the past. A vocal minority gives fodder to the blabbermouths. They, by virtue of the manipulations their contraptions conduct upon such cacophony, make it equal to the majority opinion, which is in fact overwhelmingly opposite. A threat is perceived, and the reaction is automatically vastly disproportionate to the actual threat, which gives victim/martyr status to the initial, vocal minority. That's taken right out of Lenin.
And round & round it goes.
My answer?
1) Find those at the core who are perpetuating this imbalance.
2) Completely dispense with any notion it might all be "accidental."
3) Shut them up any way necessary.
4) Allow the other 95% of the population to try to salvage what they can of the pre-existing accord.
And this is the short version.
