Anyone who knows even a little of me is more than aware of my card carrying status within the LGBT community. This only made the following more difficult to make sense of; but I did.

The proposal of gay marriage, no pun intended, seems like quite a delusory pursuit. I have yet to meet a handsome prince with a cleft chin who wants to whisk me away to a castle laden with gold, commit me to his chastened loins and lavish my environment with diamonds and a freshly killed elk. While there are indeed a good number of successful and long term gay relationships, the evidence of those who portray us as constant denizens of the dark, cruising for sex, is far from minimal.

First the facts: somewhere between 40-50% of all heterosexual marriages end in divorce. While we gay folks often seek equality under the guise of being “just like everyone else”, why would we set ourselves up at such a fragile stage of gaining legal status in the United States by displaying that we too will fall under the umbrella of broken relationships. It’s a certainty that opposing forces will glue those statistics onto highway billboards as just another example of how we’re incapable of maintaining this most basic institution. It’s poised to be yet another example of how we are simply less than human to many influential, yet moronic people. And then something that recently took place shook me awake.

I’ve been witness to the proceedings of a marriage between two very fine women in New England during the past month or so. The “pretty” one had her blond hair done in ringlets down to her shoulders, adorned her hair with daisies and was beautifully draped in white satin. Her partner was donned in a classic black tux complete with cummerbund suspenders and a top hat. I couldn’t have slapped my forehead harder without damaging my frontal cortex.

I’ve spent a good deal of time explaining to straight folks that there is no “man-woman” role-playing in gay relationships. Obviously I was wrong. Why would anyone of our ilk not only succumb to, but embrace, such limiting stereotypes? And then I slowed down and something freeing came to me.

When two people, or more, come together in emotional , physical and financial commitment, the method in which they carry that out is simply no-one’s business. They may base their relationship on the prevalent model of monogamy; they may not. They may become equal financial partners in all their endeavors; they may not. They may retain and grow their relationship within the guidelines of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Mormon Polygamy, Taoism, and all the other isms; they may not.

The point is everyone should have the choice to create a legally binding contract with whomever they choose under whatever pretext they may have. We allowed United Airlines to marry Continental and create a monopoly of mass proportions in the airline industry, but we want to limit the “pursuit of happiness” for those who simply want to love one another and do so well within the confines of American law. We don’t ask men or women forming heterosexual marriages if they plan to be swingers, celibates, Communists, anarchists or satanists; it’s just an “inalienable right”. While no one is going to ask those questions of us in states like New York or New Hampshire, isn’t that really the not-so-subtle pretense of those who oppose it?

So, head for the Big Apple, go to Tiffany’s and buy the ring you can’t afford and make sure you pick up that white taffeta gown at Donna Karan. Sashay up that gangplank to board your cruise ship for the Caribbean and grab the first Mai Tai handed to you by the blonde Nordic purser. Head for your cabin and screech like cats being run over by a car and then put on that bikini and soak up all the melanoma you can.

I now pronounce you…….

Kirk Sparrow