HORATIOOne can't help but wonder, reading this report of the Massachusetts Senate vote repealing the 1913 state law which did not allow out-of-state couples to contract a marriage in MA that would be illegal in their own states, whether the same economic motives that Hamlet ascribes to his mother's hasty wedding are not looming large in the thoughts of Massachusetts lawmakers, as they salivate over the thousands of dollars in lavish gay wedding money that will presumably be oozing into California from so many other places in the USA, where gay marriage remains illegal, thanks to the knuckle-dragging Obama-hating Neanderthal McDonald's boycotters who just can't get with the gay marriage program.
My lord, I came to see your father's funeral.
I pray thee, do not mock me, fellow-student;
I think it was to see my mother's wedding.
Indeed, my lord, it follow'd hard upon.
Thrift, thrift, Horatio! the funeral baked meats
Did coldly furnish forth the marriage tables.(..)
As the first linked article points out, Massachusetts politicians are being pretty conservative in guessing that the average gay-marrying couple will spend a bit under $3,000 on a sodomy-certification ceremony; us heterosexual married people apparently tend to spend about $30,000 on our weddings, and nobody would say with a straight face (pun intended) that gays are known for their economic restraint. (In fact, if gay weddings have one positive effect at all it may be to stop some of the outrageous expenditure by heterosexual couples that has become synonymous with the very word "wedding"; as I've written before, it's going to be up to us to encourage our children not to give the wedding industry, which can't wait to get all that gay marriage money, a dime of ours, and to learn to substitute the homemade and subdued and simple for the deluxe and lavish and extravagant.)
Has anybody ever doubted that for corporate America and their marionettes in the government this whole gay marriage thing has always, always, always been about the money? From the corporate megalomaniacs' points of view, there is just so. much. money. to be made by forcing our country to marry Bill to Ted or Willa to Edith. Thirty grand weddings? Ha! Before long it will be the standard in the gay community to pay three times that price for the bash to end all bashes--and since so many of them will "marry" multiple times over the course of a lifestyle, that's just an endless stream of filthy lucre flowing into the coffers of cake-bakers, florists, honeymoon resort owners, and people who make embossed napkins for a living. And the lawyers! The lawyers must be trembling with excited anticipation over the prospect of gay prenups, gay divorces, gay property and alimony settlements, gay child custody battles, and all the myriad of other legal opportunities, including most especially the prospect of suing into heartbreak and oblivion any American who fails to bow and worship at the altar of Narcissus and his mirror-image "bride."
From the standpoint of the corporate giants, this is all a good thing; their brains have long been addled into mush by the whole idea of "corporate diversity" which can be translated as: we'll hire anybody of any skin color, gender, religion, or sexual preference, but we're suspicious of white males who are by definition 'not diverse,' in addition, while we really want you all to look different you're not entitled to think or act different, and any indication on your part that you really are a unique individual with unique thoughts, desires and opinions is insubordination and grounds for dismissal. So they really can't fathom why anybody would want to preserve the idea of the family; many of them are already on their third or fourth trophy wife or husband, and their 1.9 kids have already cost them a lot more money than they should have, considering the low return on investment. Marriage is nothing to these captains of--I almost said "industry," but that's rather a joke, isn't it?--except a consolidation of assets, and they can't imagine why anybody wouldn't want two men or two women to have the same chance to simplify their banking routines.
The governmental minions in Massachusetts have apparently gotten the memo. The Senate has already voted to repeal the law; the House will likely follow. With all that money up for grabs, the State of Massachusetts is looking toward California as if that state were a rival streetwalker on the same stretch of a disreputable street; why should California get all the cash?