My headache is back. Not because the final court filing by Protect Marriage to keep the marriage stay in place until an appeal holds any water, but because it goes over the same landscape as before, with some new twists.
They start off by saying that it simply isn’t true that proponents of traditional marriage are restricting that civil right simply out of disapproval. Their reason? Well, "there are millions of Americans who believe in equal rights for gays and lesbians, but who draw the line at marriage". No kidding. So these millions of Americans want us to have "equal" rights, just not "totally equal" rights. How fair and American of them.
And of course, it’s still all about the children. Who are these people who think that people are going to stop having children if gays can get married? Are you kidding me? I even heard a woman on a YouTube video say this weekend that if same sex marriage is allowed, then our species will "become extinct". Seriously? Children are a fairly hot commodity right now. Seems that’s all anyone talks about anymore. I mean, even gays and lesbians are raising kids now. America is based on what’s best for children. Censorship has done nothing but increase in recent years in order to protect the children from hearing a dirty word or seeing an accidental nipple in the middle of the barbaric game of football where men violently attack each other. And given that the world population never comes close to decreasing, but only increases, this is a pretty insane argument to start.
But I digress…kids do it to me every time…
So, according to Protect Marriage, since heterosexuals can produce children "often without forethought, through casual sex", then they must have legal, sanctioned marriage so that when the irresponsible father walks out on the irresponsible mother and she is forced to care for the child on her own, then the state steps in and helps out. I’ll point out that they don’t bring up the situation of a single straight father raising a child, because I guess that doesn’t exist, or maybe they don’t see their own misogyny when they imply that only a woman would be left alone by an irresponsible man and would need state assistance since apparently women can’t take care of themselves alone like men can. Hmmm…
They point out a couple of places that straight people are subject to "accidental" children. Have they ever seen a condom? They also stick to their argument that infertile couples should be allowed to marry since in their opinion only one person in the couple is infertile and that protects the fertile member, always a man in their scenarios, more misogyny, from straying and fathering children out of wedlock. Yeah, because THAT never happens. Hold on, I’m getting a call from JOHN EDWARDS…
Easily the most insulting passage in the document is on the subject of whether the defendants are operating through the morally judgmental eyes of religion. They are not, they say, but they welcome those voices in their alliance. The religious and "moral" opinion on same sex marriage is just as useful to them as it is in matters of…get ready for this…"prostitution, gambling, capital punishment, physician assisted suicide, abortion funding, and other public policy issues that are inextricably entwined with moral values".
A decision is expected by the Ninth Circuit as early as Monday, August 16th.
