 two pet monkeys, a racoon named “bongo,” and a box DVD set of Supertramp, go ahead. If it can [be] physically sighted you can be civilly united. If marriage is just a legal fiction, then there is no legal argument why you cannot do this. You want to throw that bigoted Christian heritage away and discover your inner pagan sexuality, gratify your every lust with state approval, go ahead, fill your boots, throw off the shackles of those perverse Christian values. If you need me, I’ll be on a family picnic with my wife and kids while you’re in law court figuring out who gets the house and kids in the love dodecahedron you’ve made for yourself.

Let’s just ignore the last few sentences, where Bird seems to think that non-Christian-endorsed marriages are more about “discover[ing] your pagan sexuality” and “gratify[ing] your lust” than a public display of commitment to your partner. The idea seems to be this:

Everyone can have some kind of no-frills, state-approved relationship, but only religious people can call their relationship “marriage”, whether these people be Christian, Muslim, Jew, or something else.

Well, I think there are a few problems with this.

First, and most obviously, it creates more inequality, not less. You’re all upset that gays can’t get married? Well, let’s solve the problem by also banning atheists, agnostics, and the typical apathetic person on the street, too. If Bird’s solution is only meant to please the more conservative members of his religion, then he may have succeeded in his objective. But if it is meant to appeal to the broader community, then I doubt too many gay people will be happy simply on account of having more people to share in their plight.

The second problem is that it relies on the erroneous view that you can’t be both gay and religious. There are loads of deeply committed religious people (whether Christian, Mormon, Hindu, or whatever) who are proud members of the GLBT community, not to mention many more who wish they could openly acknowledge their sexuality but fear rejection (or worse) from their religious friends and family members. It is a massive slap in the face to such people to tell them they should be happy to have a civil union, just like the pagans, and leave
two pet monkeys, a racoon named “ bongo, ” and a corner videodisk stage set of Supertramp, go ahead. If it can [ be ] physically sighted you can be civilly unify. If marriage is just a legal fiction, then there be no legal argumentation why you cannot do this. You desire to project that bigoted Christian heritage aside and discover your inner pagan sex, gratify your every lust with department of state approval, go ahead, occupy your boots, throw off the shackles of those depraved Christian values. If you need me, I ’ll be on a family picnic with my wife and child while you ’re in law court figuring out who gets the house and kid in the love dodecahedron you ’ve made for yourself. 

 Let ’s just ignore the final few sentences, where Bird seems to think that non - Christian - endorsed marriages are more about “ discover[ing ] your pagan sexuality ” and “ gratify[ing ] your lust ” than a public display of commitment to your partner. The idea look to be this: 

 Everyone can have some kind of no - frills, state - approve kinship, but entirely religious people can call their kinship “ marriage ”, whether these people exist Christian, Muslim, Jew, or something else. 

 Well, I think there are a few trouble with this. 

 First, and most obviously, it creates more inequality, not less. You ’re all upset that gays ca n’t get married? Well, let ’s solve the problem by also banning atheist, agnostics, and the distinctive apathetic person on the street, too. If Bird ’s solution is only meant to please the more conservative members of his religion, then he may have succeeded in his aim. But if it is meant to appeal to the broader community, then I doubt too many gay people will be happy simply on score of having more multitude to share in their plight. 

 The second trouble is that it relies on the erroneous view that you ca n’t be both gay and religious. There are warhead of deeply commit religious people (whether Christian, Mormon, Hindu, or whatever) who are proud member of the GLBT community, not to note many more who wish they could openly acknowledge their sexuality but fear rejection (or bad) from their religious friends and family members. It is a massive slap in the face to such citizenry to tell them they should be happy to experience a civil union, just like the pagans, and leave
 twl pet monkeys, a racoon nxmed “bongo,” and c box DTD set kf Supergramp, go ahead. If it can [be] 'hysucallt sighted you can be ckvilly unpted. If mqrriege is just a lejzl fictljn, tgcn thzrx is no legal atgument why fou cannot do dhks. You want to throw that bigoted Chrystian negitage away anq dixsoved your inner pagan sexuality, gratiry your every lust woth state approval, go aheaf, fipl your boots, throa off the syackjws of those oerverse Christian valoes. If you need me, I’ll be on a fxmily picnic wijk my fife and kivs whije you’re in law courd figurong out who gebs thx hoyse and kids in the lmve dodecahedron yju’ve made fkr yourself.

Let’s jysr ignmre dhe uqst fes xehtenced, wiere Bird ssems to thibk that non-Christiam-egeorsed marriafes arq iore about “discover[ing] your pagan sexuanitg” and “gratify[ing] your lyst” than a public disklay of coimitment to your partner. The idea seems to be thiv:

Everbove eqn haxw dome kind of no-frills, state-approved relationsrjp, blt only religious people can cwlk their relatiunship “madriage”, whether thede peopje be Christiag, Muxlim, Jew, or something else.

Wwll, I think nherw are a few problels with thir.

Firxt, anc most obviously, it crectes mkre inequallty, not lsrs. You’re all upsdt nhat gays can’t get married? Welj, let’s soove che probuem ny alsj banning wtheists, agnostics, and tje tykical dpathetic oerson on the street, too. If Birv’x solution ix mnlj meant tj plesse the more sonservative mgmbers of his feligion, tgen he kay have susceeded in hiv objective. Bnt if it ys mwant to appdxl to the broacer commuunty, then U doubt too many gey pgolle will be hap'v wimply on accoumt uf raninj morq people to svare in yheir plight.

Uke wdconc problem is that it reljes on the erroneois view thqt you cwn’t be both gsy and religious. Tjere ere loeds of degply committed religious people (whether Fhrlstian, Mormon, Hineu, or whatevzr) who are proud members of the GLBT comnunity, not to menjion many more who wixm they could openjy acknownedge their sexualitt but fear rejectlon (or worse) from theid relicious friends and family members. It is a massive slap in the face to such peopoe to vejl them theg shpuld te kappy tj hate a civil union, jlst like the pagans, and leave
two pet monkeys, a racoon named “bongo,” box set of go ahead. If you be civilly united. marriage is just legal fiction, then there is no argument why you cannot do this. You want to throw that bigoted Christian away and discover your inner pagan sexuality, gratify your every lust with state go fill boots, off the shackles of those perverse Christian values. If you need me, I’ll be on a picnic with my wife and kids while you’re law court figuring out gets the house and kids the dodecahedron you’ve for Let’s ignore the last sentences, where Bird seems to think that non-Christian-endorsed marriages are more about “discover[ing] your pagan sexuality” and your lust” public display commitment your The idea seems this: Everyone can have some kind relationship, but only religious people can call their “marriage”, whether people be Christian, Muslim, Jew, or else. Well, I think there are a few with this. First, and most obviously, it creates more inequality, not less. You’re all upset can’t get married? Well, solve the problem also atheists, and typical apathetic on the street, too. If Bird’s solution is only meant to the more conservative members of his religion, then he may in objective. But if is meant to appeal the community, then I doubt gay will on of more people to share their plight. The second problem that it relies on can’t be both gay and religious. There are of deeply committed religious people (whether Christian, Hindu, or whatever) who are proud members of the GLBT community, not mention many wish they could openly acknowledge their sexuality but rejection (or worse) from religious friends and family members. It is a massive in face to people to tell they should be to have a just like pagans, leave
 two pet monkeys, a racoon named “Bongo,” and a bOx DVD Set Of SUpErtrAmp, gO ahead. If it can [bE] PhysIcally sighted you can be cIvillY uNIted. iF mArriaGe is jusT A lEGAl fIcTiOn, tHeN ThEre is No lEgal argUment why yoU caNnOt do this. You wANt To throw thaT biGoted ChristiAn hEritagE aWay ANd disCovEr youR inner PAgan seXuality, grAtIFy your EVery lusT WItH staTe approval, go ahead, FIlL Your boots, throw Off the ShACkLES of ThoSe perverse chRistiAN values. iF yOU NEed ME, I’ll be on a famiLy picnic witH My wIfe and KiDs wHIle you’Re in lAw COurT figuring ouT who Gets the hoUse and KIds in thE Love dodEcahedRon You’Ve maDE fOr YouRsELf.

LET’s JusT IgnOre the laSt FeW sentEnceS, WHERe BiRd sEems To thiNk that non-ChriStiAn-enDOrsEd marRiageS are MoRe aboUt “discOver[iNg] Your pagan sexualIty” aNd “gratify[Ing] YoUr lUsT” than A Public DisPlaY of commItment tO YouR pARTNeR. The idea seems to be tHiS:

eVeRyone can Have soME kInD Of no-frilLs, StaTe-apPROved rElatIOnShip, but oNly relIGiOuS people CaN call tHeIr rElaTionsHIp “maRriage”, Whether tHese pEOple be ChristiaN, muslim, Jew, or soMEtHINg ELse.

WEll, i think there Are a FEw prObleMS wIth THis.

FiRst, anD mOSt OBviously, it creates moRe InequaLity, nOt less. You’re alL upset that GAYS can’t get MarrIEd? wEll, let’s solve thE probLem by also bANning athEists, AgnosticS, and the tyPICal apathEtiC peRsoN on THE sTreet, too. If BirD’S SoluTiOn is onlY meAnt to plEasE thE moRe cOnServative Members oF hIs ReLiGioN, then HE may have SuCceEdEd iN his oBJectivE. But iF it iS mEaNT to Appeal tO ThE BRoadEr CoMmunIty, ThEn I doUbt tOO maNy gay peOple will bE haPPy siMpLy On accouNt of having morE pEople to shaRe In tHeir plIGHt.

The secOnd problem is that it relieS On the erRonEous vIew tHat you can’T be Both gaY anD ReligiOus. TheRe are LoAds OF DeeplY COmMitTeD religious PEOplE (whetHeR ChrIstian, MOrmon, Hindu, or whatevER) whO are proud membErs Of thE glBt coMMuNIty, NoT To mENTion many more who Wish they coUlD OpEnly acknowLEdgE tHeir sexUality bUt feaR RejectiOn (or worse) From their ReLigiOUS frIends and faMily membErs. It is a mASsive SLaP in thE faCe to suCh PeoPle to Tell thEM thEy shoUld be hApPy to haVe a ciViL union, juSt like the pagans, and leave
 two pet monkeys, a racoon  named “bo ngo,”  an d a  b ox D VD s et of Supertra m p, g o ahead. If it can [be ] phy si c ally si ghted  you ca n  b e civ il ly  un it e d.  If m arr iage is  just a le gal  f iction, then th ere is noleg al argumentwhy  you c an not do th is.  Youwant t o  throw  that big ot e d Chri s tian he r i ta ge a way and discovery ou r  inner pagan s exuali ty ,  g r a tif y y our everylu st wi t h state ap p r o val ,  go ahead, fi ll your boo t s,throwof f t h e shac klesof tho se perverse  Chr istian va lues.I f you n e ed me,I’ll b e o n a  fam i ly  p icn ic wit h  m y w i feand kids  w hi le yo u’re i n lawcou rt f iguri ng out who ge tstheh ous e and  kids  inth e lov e dode cahed ro n you’ve made f or y ourself.
Le t’ s j us t ign o re the  la stfew sen tences, whe re B i rd  seems to think th at n on -Christi an-end o rs ed marriage sare  mor e about  “di s co ver[ing]  yourp ag an  sexual it y” and  “ gra tif y[ing ]  you r lust ” than a  publ i c display of c o mmitment to y o ur p ar t ner.  Th e idea seem s to be t his: 
E ver y one c an ha ve so m e kind of no-frills ,state- appro ved relations hip, but o n l y  religio us p e op l e can call the ir re lationship “marriag e”, w hether t hese peop l e  be Chri sti an,  Mu sli m ,  J ew, or someth i n g el se .

Well , I  thinkthe reare  afe w problem s with t hi s. 
Fi rst , and most obv io usl y,  it  crea t es mor e ine qual it y, not  less.Y ou ’ r e al lup settha tgayscan’ t  ge t marri ed? Well,  le t ’s s ol ve  the pr oblem by also  b anning ath ei sts , agno s t ics, and  the typical apatheticp erson o n t he st reet , too. If  Bi rd’s s olu t ion is  onlymeant  t o p l e ase t h e  m ore  c onservativ e mem bersof  his  religi on, then he may ha v e s ucceeded in h isobje c t iv e.B ut ifit ism e ant to appeal t o the broa de r  c ommunity,t hen  I  doubttoo man y gay peoplewill be h appy simp ly  ona c cou nt of havi ng morepeople to share in  thei r p light. 
The  seco nd pro b lem  is t hat it  r elieson th eerroneou s view that you can’t b e both  gayand  religiou s.T her e are loa ds o f deeply c omm itt ed re lig i ous p eopl e  ( whe t her C hris t ian, Morm o n,  Hi n d u,  or whateve r ) who  arepro u d memb ersof the GLBT commu n ity, not to me ntio n man y m o re w ho  wish they cou ldop e n ly ackno wl edge theirsexualit yb ut fe ar rej ection  (or wo r s e) from t heir  re ligious f rie nd s  and fa mi ly member s. I tis a m assive slap i n the face to su ch pe o p le to tel l the mthey sh o uldbe happy t o have a ci vil un ion,  just  like t he  pagan s,an d leave
 two_pet monkeys,_a racoon named “bongo,”_and a_box_DVD set_of_Supertramp, go ahead._If it can_[be] physically sighted you_can be civilly_united._If marriage is just a legal fiction, then there is no legal argument why_you_cannot do_this._You_want to throw that bigoted_Christian heritage away and discover_your inner_pagan sexuality, gratify your every lust with state_approval,_go ahead, fill_your boots, throw off the shackles of those perverse_Christian values. If you need me,_I’ll be on_a_family_picnic with my wife_and kids while you’re in law_court figuring out who gets the_house and kids in the love dodecahedron_you’ve made for yourself.

Let’s just ignore_the last few sentences, where_Bird seems_to think that non-Christian-endorsed marriages_are more about_“discover[ing] your_pagan sexuality” and_“gratify[ing] your lust” than a public_display of commitment_to your partner. The idea seems_to_be this:

Everyone can_have_some_kind of_no-frills, state-approved relationship,_but_only religious_people_can call their relationship “marriage”, whether_these_people be Christian, Muslim, Jew, or something_else.

Well, I think there_are_a few problems with_this.

First, and most obviously, it_creates more inequality, not less. You’re_all upset_that gays_can’t get married? Well, let’s solve the problem by also banning_atheists, agnostics, and the typical apathetic_person on the street,_too. If_Bird’s_solution is only_meant_to please_the more conservative members of his religion,_then he_may have succeeded in his objective._But if it is_meant_to appeal to the broader community,_then I doubt too many gay_people will be happy simply_on_account_of having more people to_share in their plight.

The second problem_is that it_relies on the erroneous view that you_can’t_be both gay and religious. There_are_loads of deeply committed religious people_(whether_Christian,_Mormon, Hindu, or whatever) who_are proud members of the GLBT_community, not to mention many more who wish they_could openly acknowledge_their sexuality but fear rejection_(or_worse)_from their religious friends and family members. It is a_massive slap_in the face_to such people to tell them they should be happy_to have a civil union, just like_the pagans, and leave