Thinking outside "the box" on gay marriage

Driftglass has stuck up another one of his righteous screeds, the kind of blogging for which I live, that combines a heavy dose of sarcasm with an infusion of much-needed logic on the gay marriage issue, and wraps it up in one of my favorite science references, Schrodinger's Cat. It's a long post, and well worth your time to settle in with a plan to relax with a cuppa or a smoke or whatever your poison. Here's a snippet:

So let us imagine there’s a box in, oh, say, Massachusetts or Oregon or Iowa.
A big box, and in that box are the following items: 1. A Bible. 2. A preacher. 3. A gay couple. 4. A straight friend. 5. Enough consumables and comforts to last a lifetime.
Sort of a Biosphere II, but with vastly better feng shui.
And you’re living la vida no-neck in some high-toned, melanin-poor gated exurb, or in some scruffier digs where the "gate" is a gaunt, three-legged pit-bull named Bobby Lee tied the rusted hulk of an El Camino up on ancient blocks.
Now at some point over the course of years, the gay couple may ask the preacher to pick up the bible and, with their straight friend standing witness, get hitched.
Or they may not.
In fact, they exist only in a cloud of quantum connubial possibilities until you bust the box open and demand to know just what in the fuck they're doing in there. And how can they have amassed such a formidable stockpile of really spiffy antiques without ever having left the box!
It is only when you kick the door down and intrude on their private business that the haze of potential outcomes collapses into a single, nuptial certainty.
So the question is, when exactly -- over the course of, say, forty years of leaving the box intact and letting them be -- did their status inside the box destroy your marriage outside the box?
Go read the whole thing. As for me, I'm writing about love, and have opened up the floor with the question: "If you had the opportunity to speak on the floor of the Senate about the Federal Marriage Amendment, what would you say?" Some of the comments are funny, some are angry, and some will break your heart.


--> Sign up for Peek in your inbox... every morning! (Go here and check Peek box).

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. AlterNet’s journalists work tirelessly to counter the traditional corporate media narrative. We’re here seven days a week, 365 days a year. And we’re proud to say that we’ve been bringing you the real, unfiltered news for 20 years—longer than any other progressive news site on the Internet.

It’s through the generosity of our supporters that we’re able to share with you all the underreported news you need to know. Independent journalism is increasingly imperiled; ads alone can’t pay our bills. AlterNet counts on readers like you to support our coverage. Did you enjoy content from David Cay Johnston, Common Dreams, Raw Story and Robert Reich? Opinion from Salon and Jim Hightower? Analysis by The Conversation? Then join the hundreds of readers who have supported AlterNet this year.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure AlterNet remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to AlterNet, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.