be careful what you ask for; you may get it

[calimac]

As you know, Bob, a couple years ago California voters up and banned same-sex marriage on the grounds of preserving the sanctity of traditional marriage. Nothing was said about how any marriage is less sacred if some other couple may also get married, but whatever.

Well, then. If preserving the sanctity of traditional marriage is such a high priority that civil rights and ordinary humanity don't stand in the way, the next step is clear: Ban divorce.

It's been a long time since there's been a proposition that I wouldn't actually vote for but which I think presents a worthy enough case that I'd sign the petition to put it on the ballot. This one qualifies.

And since another of the strange arguments against same-sex marriage is that children deserve both a mother and a father, and since there doesn't seem to be the political will to enact this by prohibiting same-sex couples from adopting or using artificial insemination - even anti-gay conservatives agree that would be insane - can we at least Protect The Children(TM) by passing a law prohibiting the government from disrupting families by posting fathers and mothers overseas in useless wars?

Take a look at the face of this ten-year-old girl as her father walks in the room, home from nearly a year in Iraq, and listen to the dad regretting missing his younger child's first steps and first words, and tell me: is this really in the children's best interests? Is the ten-year-old really better off with a mom at home but a dad off for a year at a time and possibly never coming back at all, than she would have been if she'd had two dads who were both home? And if what would be best of all would be for a mom and dad who are both home, as the "protect marriage" rhetoric implies, then let's make it so and bring the troops home.

Watch on YouTube

P.S. Take a look at the girl's earrings. I hope someone told her what that symbol means.

Comments

[neanderthalus.livejournal.com]

Calimac, you do realize that divorce used to be very difficult to get. People asked for and after many years recieved no fault divorce. They got what they asked for and now we all have to live with it.

I would love to see families not be broken up by the requirements of the military but this is the kind of thing that happens when there is a need to use military force.

What makes you think this is a useless war? Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it unnecessary. Would you rather we pulled out and let the people who attacked our country get their hands on nuclear weapons?

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

This has been an exercise in sarcasm, in the pointing out of hypocrisy. I favor no-fault divorce. I also favor same-sex marriage. They both facilitate "the pursuit of happiness," one of the founding principles of the U.S. as expressed in the Declaration of Independence (or, as right-wingers prefer to say, the Constitution).

The point of the sarcasm is that the arguments used to oppose the one are equally applicable to the other.

I cannot in the space allowed by LJ for a comment present all the arguments against the useless wars. There are actually two of them, but Iraq, the more obviously unwarranted of them, is the one mentioned, a war which Obama wishes to terminate, which even Bush wished to terminate, though neither seems to have had the gumption to do so. However, since our aims there were to depose Saddam and install an elected government, we have accomplished these and should leave. If we wish to hang on until peace and harmony break out everywhere (in the Middle East?), that will never happen.

Since you are referring to "the people who attacked our country," who are Al-Qaida, nothing we are doing in Iraq is keeping Al-Qaida's hands off nuclear weapons or is in any way related to it. Indeed, if anything our presence there is only exacerbating the problem.

[stevegreen.livejournal.com]

CND ear-rings. I think Ann used to have a pair.