Warning: Vaguely Incoherent Liberal Rantings Ahoy!!
I've been trying to keep this journal apolitical, but... I can't. This--just--UGH. It's moments like these when I wish Apollo, Midnighter and Jenny Quantum were all real. So they could go *talk* *some* *sense* into certain individuals. -_-
I was perusing a news site earlier and found an article about the trial about California's Prop 8, which was passed in Nov. 2008 and made same-sex marriage illegal. The lawyer arguing against gay marriage had this to say in his closing argument:
"The historical record leaves no doubt, your honor, none whatsoever, that the central purpose of marriage in all societies at virtually all times is to channel procreative relationships into stable relationships to ensure that offspring that result from those relationships are raised in those stable relationships."
First of all, it always makes me upset when I hear that the main purpose of marriage is to make babies. THAT MAKES NO SENSE. Last time I checked, normal modern people (and don't get me started on the "historical record" bit, because the "historical record" also shows that it's okay to deny women and ethnic minorities their basic civil rights and beat them up when they try to improve their lives, among other lovely things) get married because they're in love--and yes, a lot of times they do want children, but what if they don't? Should it be illegal to get married unless you plan to procreate, too? And what if the couple is infertile and CAN'T have children? What then?
And second, I'm all for stable environments for kids, but that does not mean the ONLY stable environment possible for a child is with a heterosexual married couple. What about kids being raised by a single parent? Or other relatives like grandparents? Or what if the child is adopted, by a married couple or otherwise? And just because a couple is married does not mean they have a "stable relationship." Seems to me like this lawyer is reaching a little.
Well. Whatever. This whole thing is garbage if you ask me. We should not NEED this trial because we shouldn't NEED to be arguing for same-sex marriage at all. It should be common sense to allow people in love--gay, straight, or otherwise--their basic right of declaring their love in any way they wish--and that includes marriage.