![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
calimacAs 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.
P.S. Take a look at the girl's earrings. I hope someone told her what that symbol means.
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.
P.S. Take a look at the girl's earrings. I hope someone told her what that symbol means.
