The Idiotic Marriage Amendment - The Rant Continues

It occurs to me that there's more to say on this subject.  It appears, in the eyes of some, that gay marriage is more than a legal issue.  Apparently, the very english language is at stake.  The word marriage is very important.  If we accept individuals of the same sex in a publically stated commitment as married, we will lose all bearing in this world.  After all, if we can't count on marriage to mean what it has always meant, how far can we be from the end of life as we know it?  To hear some tell it, we are standing on the precipice of distaster.  If we make the wrong decision, we'll fall inexorably into gluttony.  I hate to be blunt, but this is stupid.
 
Meanings change over time.  The fact that the dictionary requires updating should be adequate proof of that.  And sometimes the change is for the better; sometimes it is for the worst.  For example, the word racism has changed for the worse over time.  These days, rather than meaning "the belief that one race is superior to others," racism now applies to pretty much any statement or action that reflects negatively on one or more races.  This dilution of meaning has rendered the word virtually unusable, or at least unworthy of serious consideration.  But sometimes meanings change for the better, as in the case of the word voter.  Women are now included in the definition of the word voter.  There was a time when they were not.  The point is that worrying about whether or not a definition might change when deciding a public policy issue indicates a severe deficiency in discernment skills.   But even if we can put this nonsense aside, there is yet another issue to tackle.
 
It appears that the children are in danger if gay marriage is allowed.  This also is stupid.  For starters, deciding whether or not gay people should be allowed to marry is an entirely separate issue from whether or not gay people should be allowed to adopt.  It is possible (though it is apparently inconceivable) that different conclusions could be reached on each issue.  But that really is no matter.  Who cares if gay people adopt? 
 
I personally have been witness to many shameful households that were led by heterosexual parents.  I have also seen wonderful families led by gay parents.  That would seem to indicate that parenting skill is less dependent upon the tendency to breed than it is upon the possession of some key personality traits.  In any case, the issue is really a matter of practicality.
 
The choice for prospective adoptees is basically between not getting adopted or getting adopted by gay parents.  Obviously, the latter is the better option.  Of course, we can suppose that some worry that gay parents will adopt children that would otherwise end up in the hands of capable heterosexual parents.  Once again, how adoptees are distributed is entirely separate from whether gay people should be afforded the same marital rights as heterosexual people.  Nevertheless, I am still convinced that the test for being a qualified parent really has nothing to do with sexuality.  It's about being responsible and making certain that the child is loved unconditionally, and it's about making sure the child grows up in an environment where his or her wellbeing is top priority.  Gay people are as good as anyone at that.
 
In the end, the gay marriage amendment is nothing more than homophobes seeking to push their views on the general public.  They can make whatever hollow arguments they like, but the fact remains - they can't stand living in a world where gay people have the same rights they do.  I say, tough shit.  I live in a world governed by a constitution that guarantees all human beings equal rights under the law.  If they don't like it, they can move.  That is one right they definitely have.