How Do You Like These Apples?

---

Marriage is not about love. It's about a love that can bear children.
--Todd Akin, Missouri (R)

---

Fundie say wha??

I wish I could make this shit up. Seriously, do we really need to show this man for the idiot he need not profess to be?

I sit here and ponder how many infertile couples who would die for the chance to have a child think about this statement. Straight, married couples all over the world pay thousands upon thousands of dollars for the chance to be a parent. Hell, so do single persons and persons who are unable to marry. But the straight married couples are in for a rude awakening--did they know they aren't truly married according to Todd? I mean, if they can't reproduce, should we revoke their licenses?

How about my evil grandmother's marriage to her second husband? They got married wwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy after her ass became barren. We truly should have prevented that, I suppose. I mean, they can't reproduce, right? So it isn't about a love that can produce children. (Of course, it was more about security for her anyway, not love, so I suppose she's on the list for marriage revocation also, eh?)

Of course, then there are the couples who choose not to reproduce... I suppose they'll come up with a new "category" of marriage, or a "civil union," if you will, for those couples? I mean, even if they do choose to get married but then choose not to have children, that violates this guys definition. We should just make having children a prerequisite before marriage, then, hmm?

Get the ol' virgins knocked up to prove they have a love for producing children, and then hand them a marriage license...

But wait, that'll violate the fundies whole "no sex til marriage" campaign, won't it...

Hmm, conundrums, conundrums...

Of course, we all know who the actual target is... Gay couples.

The only state that allows gay couples to marry is Massachusetts. Did you know that Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the entire country? Seriously, have had the lowest for 20 years running. See here, here, and here. An average of 2.4 divorces per 1,000.

Massachusetts is still a state of the union. It hasn't fallen off the coast. No lightning strikes by the sky god. No earthquakes. No bubonic plague. No rash of straight couples getting divorced so they can have a same-sex marriage. No hell fire and brimstone falling from the sky. And guess what? Gay marriage has been legal there for what? 4 years now?

Did you also happen to notice where the divorce rates are highest in the country? Yep, the Bible Belt. See here and here, and also here. That bastion of family values and moral upstanding virtues, those bible-thumping, Jesus-loving, gay hating, church-going, literal-bible-reading part of our population who claims to have the "heart of America." Now, I ask you, with the bible belt leading the nation in broken families, are they really the people you should be asking for their guidance in "family values"?

On another web site, someone implied that gay people only have children to promote their lifestyle and perversion, and bring it to the schools and "brainwash" children into thinking "gay is okay." First off, is that why fundies have kids? To promote an agenda? To brainwash them about god early on, so they can infiltrate the schools and start a revolution of religion in the public school system? This same poster stated that they never heard the word "sex" uttered in a school until they hit college... What the fuck lame-ass school did you go to? Sex ed was in the curriculum in almost every school in the north-east! 8th grade health class! Hello? Am I really the only one who has had sex ed in high school?

Of course, this person did say at one time that in the south they use the "pot calling kettle black" phrase, so I assume they are from that great bastion of family values called the south with their highest-national-average divorce rates, so...

---

Of course, recently the New York state supreme court, and just today the Washington State supreme court ruled that gays do not have a right to marriage under their states constitutions, and indeed, not knowing the wording of their state's constitutions, they may be right.

I do know that federally, we do have a right to marriage through legal supreme court precedant (see Loving V. Virginia, here, particularly this quote from the decision of the court, "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. [...] Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State." In other words, marriage cannot be restricted by the states when it infringes on an individuals freedom to marry, in this case, based on race...) We also have the inalienable right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness... we also have, in the constitution, the right to go to Massachusetts and get married and have our home state recognize that marriage (see here and here)...

But until someone with the funds actually sues on those grounds, there isn't much hope that I will be able to marry my husband. I will not get the house if he dies unless I buy it back from his estate (unlike straight spouses when their partner dies who just automatically get the house and any remaining mortgage on it), I will not get his social security when he dies, or he when I die (unlike straight spouses), I will not be able to do a whole bunch of things straight couples take for granted... To see an almost complete listing of the 1,049 rights and benefits of married straight couples that not even the married gay couples of Massachusetts can avail themselves to, see here.

And, being an American tax payer, is that fair? Is that right?

I think you know it isn't...

But are you American enough to stand up for my rights with me?

Or are you happy with the status quo, because it doesn't affect your life directly?

This is a nation that guarantees and protects individual liberties and rights. Not just the popular ones. Not just the majority ones. It's majority rule with minority rights. Any simple class on the Union will teach you that.

Question is, are you paying attention...

---

When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews, I did not speak out; I was not a Jew.

When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.

--Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892-1984)

---

Am I being a little over-dramatic with this quote?

Perhaps...

But right now, it's only my rights their after...