|
You can't have it both ways. Either marriage is a civil institution - in which case, there's no actual reason to prohibit it between adults of the same gender - or it's a religious institution - in which case, the very words "marriage license" make about as much sense as the words "bishopping permit".
Also, I really want to see someone try to draw Max and Carol in matching wedding dresses now.
|
|
0371-------------------------------------
(Wednesday evening, INT: WW and SW's place)
SW: You don't think anyone should get married?
JH: Oh far from it. Like I just said, marriage is a beautiful thing. I just don't think the government has any business regulating it.
--------------
WW: But there needs to be a legal framework for tax purposes and immigration and insurance and hospital visitation...
JH: Fuck that. Have'em base all that on long-term cohabitation, or on whose name you fill out in the forms when you apply for the immigration or the insurance. There is no good reason for a legal version of "marriage" to exist.
--------------
JH: Y'see, the problem is that our society developed organically from a society in which public life was inextricably tied to one religion - that's why there's this confusion between all this legal crap and the religious ritual, and we need to pry the two apart. Honestly, the very idea of a law regulating a declaration of love is kind of offensive to me.
--------------
JH: And once the law's no longer involved, you're free to have whatever kind of wedding fits your relationship, be it a Catholic wedding or a Protestant wedding or a Hindu wedding or a big clusterfuck nonreligious ceremony with three grooms and two brides.
WW: Oh God, I just tried to picture Max and Carol in matching wedding dresses and I think you broke my brain.
|
