Morals aside, here is why the definition of a marriage being only between a man and a woman is total shit.

Plain and simple, if any constitution is going to dictate that marriage is only allowed between a man and a woman, then it must define the words “man” and “woman.”

Seriously. Because if they are the only two types of humans who can marry, we'd better sure as heck legally know what they are. And despite what you may think, gender identity can be a very gray area.

So for starters, let’s look at the physical aspects of what makes a man a man and what makes a woman a woman.

Men have penises. Fair enough. But if a man were to lose his in some sort of unfortunate accident (a la John Bobbie pre-reconstruction), he technically doesn’t have one anymore. Therefore, if gender definition is based on possession, he would (at that time) have no longer been a man. (He wouldn’t be a woman either since lack of a penis doesn’t equal a vagina.)

So then one can claim that he still has testes and a prostate and other organs that females don’t possess. Fine. He’s still a dude if the law defines a man as “someone with testes” or something similar.

But what about someone born with both? Since hermaphroditic people can possess ovaries and testes (male and female reproductive parts) within one human body, are they only allowed to marry other hemaphrodites?

It’s a valid question. Otherwise, you could possibly have a woman, another half of a woman and a man in one marriage. And that would legally not be allowed if the definitions of “man” and “woman” included reproductive organs.

But hermaphrodites can identify with one gender more than another and have “corrective” surgery to become “strictly” male or female. But there’s a chance that their chosen gender may not match their particular genetic gender assignment.

So let’s take a look at that.

So if the definition of “man” is a human possessing an XY combination and “woman” is a human possessing an XX combination, what about those in the population who aren’t XX or XY?

Surprise! Not everyone is an XX (female) or XY (male).

Females with one X chromosome and nothing else (X0) have what’s known as Turner’s syndrome. We still consider them human although they’re a chromosome short of the standard, but could they legally not be female?

Some men have two Y chromosomes (XYY). And others have two X chromosomes (XXY). So it presents the same problem as those with Turners—can they legally be considered of one gender when they don’t match the legal definition?

And if they can’t be legally gender assigned, they can’t marry anyone.

So, as I hope you can sort of see, defining “man” and “woman” will, like most legal things, take millions of dollars worth of finessing and arguing and it’s just not worth it to spread religious propaganda.

Which brings me to who should decide who is or isn’t allowed to wed.

If permitting people to marry is a moral decision, let the individual churches and religions deal with their own people.

If bigoted religions are not going to allow two men or two women who are in love join their lives in a ceremony, fine. Whatever. LGBTs deserve better than that asshole god anyway.

If a religion is alright with anyone loving anyone, fantastic! LGBTs can have a religious, god-approved union if they so desire.

This is why we have separation of church and state. It’s not to keep god out of schools or whatever. It’s to keep government out of churches.

Think about it next time you have a few seconds. Think about the whole reason people fled Europe and set up colonies in the states. You’ll start to see.

Anyway, I hope Prop 8 gets revoked. I hope it gets revoked in the Supreme Court and the whole country allows people to legally love who they love. I hope all of my gay friends get to marry if they want to. And I hope I’m invited to their weddings.