Wherein I make the Prop 8 ruling about me.
Posted by: Donna
Kudos to Judge Vaughn Walker for his outstanding decision declaring Prop 8 (and presumably every other state law banning gay marriage) un-Constitutional. You can read the decision here and see how he thoroughly dismantles and demolishes the defendants’ argument.
But like I said, while I’m very happy for my LGBT brothers and sisters today, this is about me! Me me me!!
Judge Walker’s decision notes that attorneys for the defendants were from a coalition of social conservative organizations. Gov. Schwartzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown were named as defendants in the suit but both declined to participate. The defense team is affiliated with Protect Marriage, the official campaign for the 2008 ballot initiative. On the campaign’s website protectmarriage.com, you can find a pdf of the Witherspoon Report, a 2006 issue paper that was the basis for much of the pro-Prop 8 testimony in the trial. Brief synopsis: Marriage is really, really, really good for society. Really. Especially for children. Oh, and marriage can only be between a man and a woman because men and women bring different skill sets to the union which are necessary for the proper raising of children. Did we mention that marriage is all about the children?
Starting on page 24 the report describes what authors see as the Four Threats to Marriage. They are: divorce, illegitimacy, cohabitation, and Teh Gheys. Say, the first three mostly involve straight people, don’t they? And divorce breaks up more marriages than, well, anything, doesn’t it? But I digress. I must take umbrage at the Witherspoon Report and the entire “protect marriage” movement on behalf of myself and heterosexual childless curmudgeons everywhere. Um, helloooo. What am I, chopped liver?
Let me tell you something, Protect Marriage people, you should be keeping closer tabs on me and my ilk. In 2003 19% of women age 40-44 did not have children, compared to 10% in 1976. You’re worried about gay people wanting access to the institution of marriage and (for some of them at least) the opportunity to raise children? Really? You see that as a more pressing threat to your ideal than divorce, single parenthood, cohabitation, and (especially) voluntary childlessness? Seems to me that if you think “procreation is intrinsically connected to marriage”, and you think gay couples should be denied the right to marry based on that, then you must view the reverse as true – that marriage is intrinsically connected to procreation. That means you should be preparing legislation to deny the right to marriage to any couple unable or unwilling to procreate. You should be doing your utmost to stop a childless curmudgeon like me from being able to marry my boyfriend. Along with post-menopausal women and any couple where one or both of them are infertile. Otherwise, it kinda looks like you’re singling out gay people for discrimination.
All this makes this self-absorbed diva feel, you know, left out.
1 Comment(s)
Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI
Leave a comment
Gaaawd, I’m tired of behaving. No more nicey crap.
All this makes this self-absorbed diva feel, you know, left out.
Awww, c’mere and sit by me.
On the previous post about Phyllis(up) Schafly, I extrafoliated about unmarried unwomen. I shall attempt to explain wingnut logic, once again.
People get married so they can have children. They do this by means of the scientific term “boinking”. Even though homosexual couples do boink, they have matching fertility units. Therefore they cannot have children, making marriage unecessary. Since having children is the most important thing, most married couples boink to match the womans fertility cycle.
Since you are umarried and, I assume, boink (i hope!) without regards to your fertility cycle I have come to this conclusion.
You are an unmarried, unwoman, unicycle.