All About the Children

For reasons which should be obvious to regular readers, this argument trips every trigger I have:

Yesterday there was mostly expert testimony about the history of
marriage and discrimination and demonization of gay citizens in the
United States. The professors gave great evidence that the arguments of
the Prop 8 defenders is spurious. One of the big points the defendants
attorney keeps trying to make is that marriage is a social institution
solely for the purposes of procreation.

Yeah, you read that right, they are going hang their hat on the idea
that the only social purpose marriage hold is to have children born.
They are going to put aside love, they are going to put aside stability
in the community, they are going to put aside the social interest of
people having a public status as a couple and push the procreative
aspect completely.

We have already seen them mentioning that the U.S. birth rate is
only at replacement levels. Though the expert witness demolished that
by saying immigration has always driven the U.S. population. When the
defense attorney jumped in with “Illegal immigration?” the calm and
cutting response was “All immigration”, which to the Dog just goes to
show when you are bigoted in one area, you are bigoted in all of them.
But that is not what this post is about.

By the logic the defense will present, the Dog and his wife and
partner Mrs. Dog should not be allowed to be married. You see, 12 years
ago Mrs. Dog fell down on a stone floor at a restaurant she was
managing. She ruptured two discs in her upper back. For a couple of
years she was barely able to work, but through a whole array of
treatments, she is doing fine today. Unfortunately, she is permanently
on a set of drugs to keep her healthy. Two of these drugs are
anti-inflammatory medicines. This means she cannot carry any pregnancy
to term. We found this out the hard way with a couple of miscarriages.

So, our marriage of 14 years would be one that the Prop 8 forces are going to argue should not really be allowed.

This bit of nonsensical condescension came on top of the bullshit arguments, Twittered by bitchphd yesterday, that marriage is not about “personal fulfillment” but about having children.

(And: GRRR. As if you have to pick. As if one cannot be personally fulfilled by having children, or must automatically surrender all sense of self and desire to be a person unto oneself simply because one has kids. You’re either a selfish whore denying yourself and the world your glorious offspring, or you’re a brainless brood mare who gave up everything you once loved to slave for unappreciative drool-machines who don’t speak English and will never understand what you sacrificed for them. Wow, hook me up to the egg machine NOW, baby, I can’t wait to get a piece of that action! Just fuck this whole conversation, honestly.)

And like I keep saying, we all have these friends who talk like this after they have babies, who talk about kids being the only really worthwhile thing in life and no one being able to be truly human without them. I usually take such statements as being uttered in the state of total orgasmic bliss one finds oneself lost in when in the throes of any new relationship, when one can talk about nothing but the fabulous new thing, no matter how annoying it is to everybody else. I try not to get all defensive, like, “Well, fuck you, then, I guess my life is worthless” because most of the time they’re not thinking about it that hard. They’re caught up. Twitterpated. Head over heels, and really, good on them. Be happy, for God’s sake.

These nutjob bigots really are thinking about it that hard, though, and using fertility to punish people. If every marriage that does not or cannot result in a passel of kidlets is somehow a perversion of marriage’s true intent, then they’re not only boring on about how boys kissing is yucky, they’re saying a whole lot of their fellow straight folks should be getting letters from the IRS demanding our tax breaks back. I know childless Christian Republican couples, too, and I don’t think they’d take all that kindly to hearing that their marriages are bullshit. It’s not really a smart strategy, from the perspective of “Let’s try not to look like total assholes to people,” but then, these are the GOP’s favorite sons and daughters, I suppose that ship sailed some time ago.

Schmucks.

A.

9 thoughts on “All About the Children

  1. Suzanne says:

    “and stick THAT in your pipe and smoke it!”
    good rant. i am sending it to my daughters.

  2. Jude says:

    That’s all they’ve got, huh?
    Really? It’s bad for procreation? What a bullshit argument. Attention, dipshits: THESE PEOPLE WOULD NOT HAVE HAD CHILDREN ANYWAY. While (ignoring lesbian couples who conceive through IVF or the much rarer natural way) gay couples can (and should be able to if they’re not already) adopt children, there’s no way, biologically speaking, for a same sex couple–MARRIED OR NOT–to conceive and bear children with each other. The marriage part is completely fucking superfluous.
    This is the best legal argument that Mormon dollars can buy?
    You know what is REALLY bad for procreation? The lack of a living wage, for one. Hmmm…what else…oh, not having universal health care, maybe? Poisoning the air and water with compounds whose effects on the reproductive system (not to mention the entire human body) are deleterious or just not understood at all–that’s not so great for procreation. Oh, vows of chastity aren’t so great for procreation, either. Sorry there, Catholic church.
    These people all need to be kicked in the taint.
    Hard.

  3. FeralLiberal says:

    And if you are married and in a position that you can’t afford to have children do you have them anyway and count on the state to support them, or just get a divorce? So only the well off should be married? You’d best be providing public birth control then. Ooops, can’t do that either, every sperm is sacred ya know…
    Wankers.

  4. leinie says:

    So they want an age limit for marriage, now, too? People who get married later in life, when the childbearing days are gone, those can’t be valid either?
    Ah yes, I forgot, the only worth a woman has is in bearing children, and once that menopause hits, we might as well send them out on an ice flow.
    I second Jude about the kicking.

  5. Interrobang says:

    I’ve met people withgrown children who still think that you can’t possibly be completely fulfilled unless you have kids. So it ain’t strictly a “new relationship” thing. I figure it’s something more akin to “pump head,” which means once you’ve gone terminally baby-crazy, you never really come back to Sanityville ever again.
    If that’s “fulfillment,” I’ll stay unfulfilled, because I’m wired such that I don’t understand why anyone has babiesvoluntarily. I mean, yeah, it’s the done thing even still, and I can understand why people did before birth control was invented, but if everyone were like me, the human race would have stopped reproducing entirely in about 1961, after a sharp decline in 1850*. Apparently some peoplelike babies, but I’ve never been able to figure that one out.
    Apparently baby-crazy people can’t figure people like me out, either. 🙂
    _________________
    * Invention of the Pill and condoms, respectively.

  6. biophys says:


    just sayin’.

  7. pansypoo says:

    yes. i guess my great-aunt’s post menopause marriage is invalid.

  8. The Other Sarah says:

    Actually, they’re wrong. Marriage is a legal convention aimed at ensuring legitimacy in property rights.
    Everything after that is gravy, except for one thing.
    Which is the truth: marriage gives us society’s blessing on our loving togetherness.
    Procreation shouldn’t have a thing to do with whether or not you can marry. Childbirth is dangerous, even in the USA.

  9. pansypoo says:

    OH SHIT. ALL FIVE of my other great-aunts marriages. at least 2 were childless while fertile.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: