For several days now, I?ve been in a running argument with an individual who goes by the name of ?On Lawn? over in the comments sections of the blog ran by anti-gay equality group National Organization for Marriage. In several comments here, here, and here, this person seems to imply that procreation, or at least the potential for procreation, is a requirement of marriage. I?ve tried several times to get this person to explain this concept but they keep brushing off the question calling it absurd. When I tried to point out that there is no link between marriage and procreation they came back with this.
Well, there shows the damage they want to do to the institution. If marriage can?t look equally at the interests of all involved in the practice of human mating, then you tell me what can.
Prehistoric humans didn?t marry before they mated, they just found a bush did it. When you look at the whole of human history, marriage is a relatively new creation, only being a few thousand years old. Our very existence proves that marriage is not a requirement or an essential element of the human mating process.
Is this the family you want in the White House? A family that advocates “praying away the gay”; a practice that is dangerous and harmful.
Republican Duncan Hunter (CA) has introduced H.R. 337, badly named Restore Military Readiness Act.This bill, if passed would require the signoffs of the Joint Chiefs before the implementation of the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Contrary to its name, there is little in this bill that does anything to improve the readiness of the military. It is nothing more than a back door attempt to delay or even prevent the ending at this discriminatory policy. Hunter is a Main combat Vet, having served in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and who is publicly opposed to allowing open service for gay and lesbian troops.
The idea behind the Restore Military Readiness Act is not necessarily to prevent the implementation of the DADT repeal, but rather to ensure that military readiness and combat effectiveness are not adversely impacted.
Is nothing but a cover because he is fully aware that Marine Corps Commandant, Gen. James Amos is opposed to repeal and would not signoff on it.
I don’t believe I will ever understand how some people see this sort of discrimination acceptable. Appently they don’t Understand that not only does DADT interfere with peoples lives, encourages hateful bigotry, but also wastes those precious tax dollars that Republicans are so fond of pretending they are interested in saving.
Iowa House Republicans wasted almost no time at all in submitting a bill to the house that would overturn the Varnum decision by the Iowa Supreme Court and allow a vote on adding discrimination to our state constitution for the first time in our history. Republicans, spurned on by the nastiness of Groups like the Iowa Family Policy Center and outside anti-gay groups like the National Organization for Marriage, are hell bent making sure that Gay and Lesbian Iowans are treated as second class citizens and striping away our right to marriage.
The proposed bill would not only remove our civil right to marriage it would also expand the ban any other form of legal recognition of same sex couples in domestic partnerships or civil unions.
56 of the 60 Republicans in the state house have signed on as co-sponsors of this discrimination. Republicans have enough votes to pass this in the House, but Democrats have vowed to defeat it in the Senate. If this bill passes both the House and the Senate, it will have to do so again in the next state legislature and would be put in the ballot in 2013. If it fails, their next opportunity will not be until 2016. Hopefully by then the US Supreme Court will have ruled all such bans unconstitutional.
ACLU spokesman Ben Stone responded…
The ACLU now recognizes the explicit anti-gay agenda behind the so-called marriage amendment movement by going beyond marriage to civil unions,” Stone said. “This is quite clearly and quite simply an anti-gay measure. The ACLU Of Iowa and its allies will fight it
If this law passes and is approved by voters in 2013, the ACLU needs to immediately challenge it just like Prop 8 has been challenged in California.