The public outcry regarding the issues of permitting and performing civil unions between gay and lesbian couples has been in the news for nearly a decade, and the battle had been brought to the nation's attention well before the beginning of Bill Clinton's terms as President.  However, since that time, only a handful of states have been progressive enough to allow same-sex marriage.  Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Connecticut have all recognized same-sex marriage.  However, this issue may not be resolved in Maine, as that state has a stipulation in its constitution which allows for "a people's veto" to kill signed legislation. 

The major argument against same-sex marriage is uttered along these lines:

"Because of the profound importance of man-woman marriage to the nation, we too urge the citizens of Maine to exercise their right to a 'people's veto' and halt this move toward counterfeit marriage," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a conservative advocacy group."

Yes, man-woman marriage is important.  But tell that to the 46% of individuals whose marriages ended in divorce.  Now, you mean to tell me that man-woman marriage is so important, sacrosanct, and holy, yet less than half of heterosexual couples can endure each other once they say their vows?  Interesting.  Statistical analysis should be interpreted with caution, as the above hyperlink does not specifically indicate that any marriage will end in divorce.  There are many factors which can lessen the chances of a divorce.  However, many studies have indicated that the United States leads the Western World in percentage of children growing up in a household without both parents.  The purpose of statistics involves stating the chance (or probability) of an outcome in percentage format.  However, in the event of marriage, some studies have counted the death of a spouse as a divorce.  Although it is nitpicking to say, I would like to remind individuals that NOT NEARLY 46% of divorced couples did so based on a death of the spouse.

The people at the Family Research Council beliefs about the sanctity of marriage and the "importance of man-woman marriage to the nation" may be genuine.  Perhaps they believe in the sustainability and perseverance of a couple's love to overcome any difficulties they may encounter in their marriage.  Perhaps they believe that couples should (and could) stay married no matter the obstacle.  However, some use this excuse as a feeble attempt to disguise their belief that same-sex marriage is immoral. 

Yet, if marriage is so special and joyous, why do nearly half of the couples get divorced?  Heterosexuals are given the right to marry, yet 50% of them apparently don't value the practice.  What is the problem with letting same-sex couples wed?  We haven't been the standard bearers for marriage excellence, after all.  Besides, if everything in life were given a 50% chance of success in a best-case scenario, I guarantee we would see a lot fewer people going to the hospital. 

Fifty percent should be a free-throw percentage, not the estimated success of a marriage.

Alright, now that the "man-and-woman" conundrum has been settled, what about the next hurdle: "but, it says in the Bible..." Well, the Bible is a very serious book, and, as much as I like it when people reference literature to make a point, I have to draw the line at Biblical quotes.  Let me say that I appreciate the Scriptures, but I have my doubts.  For instance, I know that static electricity exists even though it isn't mentioned in the Bible.  Furthermore, the Bible is contradictory in many places; as in the Flood which destroys humanity save for Noah and his family (plus all the critters the Ark could carry) which he must use to repopulate the earth.  However, later in the Bible, we learn that the Israelites need to destroy the Hittites and Ammonites.  Strange, but wouldn't these people be considered descendants of Noah just as much as the Israelites?  Besides, we haven't found all the hiding places or scrolls of the Biblical scriptures and the Greek translation of the Bible contains four more books than the Latin translation.  Seems a bit odd that the Ancients would be selective about the Word of God, especially if they truly believed He could flood the world.  I wouldn't be removing books if my survival depended on it, would you?

So let's leave the Bible debate for the "last ditch effort" box regarding arguments, OK?

Since the "moral" element has been eliminated, why am I still writing this?  For the money.  No, not for me; for the nation.  If the nation permitted same-sex marriage, the married couples would have to pay a fee in order to get a marriage license.  Though not a large sum of money at all, it would still pump more money into the coffers of the treasury at the local and state level.  Given the government budget cuts across the board in all American states, accepting money for same-sex marriage licenses may take some of the sting out of budget meetings.  Furthermore, if married couples file their taxes jointly -as all married couples should- this will help pump more money into the Federal Treasury.

So, if this were to come to fruition in all 50 states, it would benefit the local, state, and federal levels of income distribution.  Hey, the government has accepted money from numerous interest groups and lobbyists to uphold the status quo and keep real change from helping Americans.  Government officials care nothing for morality (if they did, why would Newt Gingrich divorce his wife while she lay in a hospital with cancer?).  Money is what they want to see.  Well, it isn't much, but it is more than zero; which is what  the government is getting by excluding a portion of the population who can say "I love you" just like the rest of us.  Now, it is time for the rest of this nation to join with the other progressive states when it comes to same-sex marriage and say: "I do"