Protecting What's Not Under Attack

The Washington Supreme Court voted recently to keep firmly in place the state's gay marriage ban. Despite the fact that the vote was close (5-4), as well as all the talk about Washington being a "liberal leaning" state, the reason the Court gave for upholding the ban is one of the most ludicrous things you'll hear this year.

Justice Barbara Madsen writes in the controlling opinion that all this "is constitutional becasue the Legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to survival."

Procreation. Essential to survival. The deductive leaps made by the Washington Supreme Court are truly staggering in their perspicacity. Unfortunately, their ridiculous legal double-talk is pathetically transparent. The last time I ran through the phone book the population on Earth was rapidly approaching seven billion. I can't imagine anything, short of a Texas-sized asteroid colliding with us, threatening the survival of the species. If one HALF of the bloody planet turned queer overnight, we wouldn't have a problem filling this place to capacity. The procreating humans are here to stay.

How can refusing to let gay people marry further procreation anyway? If they can't get married, do they stop being gay? Do they enter the breeding pool? Do more straight people get married and have kids just to rub it in gay faces?

More to the point, where does the Constitution that these folks are defending guarantee safety, much less the continued survival of the species? The Constitution makes provisions to DEFEND the population, but it certainly doesn't shoulder the burden of ensuring humanity's survival. The right to have children is constantly being defended; the right NOT to have children is usually overlooked. If people want to remain childless, whether straight or gay, it's no one's business but their own. Not the God-lovers who demand more mouths to feed and praise Jesus; not the weeping hearts who believe marriage is only about the progeny; and not the patriots that want to guarantee a good bumper crop of young 'uns to send into the teeth of the next war. My wife and I never want children. Should we be denied the benefits of marriage? Of course not. Legally, we can't be denied those benefits. So why is it OK when the couple in question is gay?

This species will survive. There is no question about that. The fact that a state Supreme Court thinks it's a good enough reason to deny equal rights to one group of people speaks volumes about the mentality of this nation. As does the notion that marriage is somehow being attacked. All the organizations dedicated to theocracy preach the same tired old bullshit about how they must "defend" the institution of marriage. From what? What could possibly threaten marriage? No, what they're worried about is what's threatening their RELIGION. If gay folks, whom God obviously hates, are allowed to wed, then what's to stop the rest of the self-aware, free-thinkers from chipping away at their ridiculous faith? If faggots and dykes can get married, if that affront to God is allowed, then the gates to religious fascism will begin to swing closed instead of open.

And the religious right in American can't have that. They've worked to long, too hard, and too selfishly to stand by while the freedoms they've taken away are slowly restored. This is not about marriage-it never was. This is about defending the stranglehold Chrisianity has on this country. If it's allowed to slip, even an inch, then science, logic, and peace may have a chance to come flooding back in.

Back off, Christians. Why don't you try defending heterosexual marriage from it's 60 percent divorce rate before you start telling the rest of us how to handle it?

Wake up and resist.