its so cold in this house...

so i was talking to a buddy of mine on IM. well, 'buddy' is a relative term. he plays on my ultimate team [new noise] with me. and tells me my taste in music is too "mainstream" so he then proceeds to give me lots of this 'underground indie' that is less in-the-spotlight than the music i already listen to is. and comments a lot on these blogs i do. and is mean to me in these comments. and i think the reason is because he is in love with me. and this causes him cognitive dissonence because he is getting married [to a girl] in a few months. so he has to lash out at me to convince himself he's not in love with me and that marrying this girl is the right thing to do. i wont mention any names, but i'll give you a hint: it starts with a mark and ends with a slivka. come on mark slivka, youre not fooling anyone. KEG STAND. ok, so anyway. im talking to mark and in my constant efforts to gain an invite to this wedding [since apparently none of his frisbee friends are cool enough to invite...or maybe its just me], he mentions something about buying the wedding bands this past wednesday.

my comment to that is "well, im sure that wasnt the most expensive part." and then i qualify my statement with one of the standard "well, comparitively. im sure it cost a good amount of money, but the engagement ring is the big $$, right?" and he comes back with something like "its all expensive, but yeah. the engagement ring is the big dent" or something like that [i wasnt really paying attention, i think someone next to me farted]. so my question back to him was if they had some sort of federal funding for people getting married. kind of like student loans, but you know; marriage financial aid. i then commented on how that would be a good subject for a blog post. annnnnnd here we are. see, the back-story IS necessary. so yeah, this is my idea. not like i need it anytime soon or anything. geezus, relax people. mom, stop crying. im not getting married to my roommate. i think my point was more this:

the government [namely George W. Douche's administration] is going through these great lengths to define for us [us being the general public who clearly cant think for ourselves] what a marriage is. the union between a man and a woman, right? well, if they get to make laws and pass acts and kill for oil so they can define this for the citizens of the USA [wait, werent we a country founded on the idea of getting away from religious and lifestyle persecution? away from people telling us how to live our lives? just a hint; a reminder of our past, in case anyone forgot], shouldnt they help pay for this 'institution'? does that make sense?

i mean, if the government wants to be so involved in what people can and cant do in regards to living together, then they should put their money where their mouth is. give money to us heterosexuals to help promote this man-woman union. i say, give every couple thats getting married like, $40-50k. tax-free, by the way. that way guys can buy big-ole rocks for their baby's mommas, and then women can have sweet bridesmaids dresses and tons of flowers. and unicorns painted on each of their finger and toe nails. and awesome bbq and open bars for the receptions. thats clutch. open bar = key. so with the government funding marriage, they get to impose their bullshit guidelines and we get awesome rings and parties out of the deal. that seems fair, right? i mean, if they get to tell us what to do, we might as well get some kick-back out of it, correct? am i wrong?

sure, it sucks for those people who either a) arent heterosexual or b) dont want to get married or c) already GOT married, but whatever. the US government doesnt care about those people anyway. here's the thing: i just know that if i want to get DJ Sasha at my reception, its gonna take some major casholah. cashito. dollarinies. and i certainly dont have that shit right now. so, come on congress. step up to the plate. mikey needs some sweetie tunes, some thumpin' bass, and six schlitzes... or whatever's free. you know what im talking about. but youve got some time, US government, cuz im not getting married for a while. so, no rush.

so, just a wild guess here [im gonna go out on a limb]: the government is most likely not going to give us money to suppliment our weddings. sorry to disappoint people [i know, i know... you can cry on my shoulder any tuesday or thursday from 11:00-11:15pm], but its just not going to happen. so if we get nothing out of the deal, then i dont think they have any place passing laws defining what marriage can or cant be.

and no, im not saying marriage can be between a man and a sheep. goddamn i hate the religous Right. as david cross said, there is an ignorance and stupidity that runs DEEP in this country; for now lets call it, ummm.. i dont know... "southern baptists". point is, we're not retarded. marriage isnt going to become something between two random things because someone down south feels that two men or women getting married is a bastardization of their sacred union [so sacred, mind you, that over 50% of marriages today end in divorce]. but if two people love each other, and those two people just happen to be homosexual, i think they should be able to get married. why not? i put money down that if studies were done they would show that gay couples that get married a) are more successful than the average 'straight' couple career-wise, b) have a healthier relationship than the average 'straight' couple, and c) have marriages that last longer/are more successful than the average 'straight' couple. and i think all those against gay marraige know this as well. and it scares them. and isnt there something in our declaration of independence about the 'pursuit of happiness' and all 'men being created equal'? but anyway; im not here to start arguing these points. i am here to rock.

so yeah. point of this post is this: mark; invite me to your wedding. if not, i will be standing outside of the ceremony blasting "ratatat" through Marshall full-stacks and break-dancing on cardboard all fucking night. thats not a threat, thats a promise.

"we've got crosses on our eyes; for richer, for poorer, for better, for worse"