some food for thought

(and no its not roast beef chopped up really fine and mixed with ricotta cheese, which Jo GOBBLED down at daycare today…. um ew)

I don’t have a whole lot new or interesting to contribute to the this week of SCOTUS madness, but someone posted this here link on FB today and its got me thinking about our emphasis on marriage as the ” the most important relation in life” in the fight against the crazy “family values” agenda ( ” that includes abstinence-only sex education, stringent divorce laws, coercive marriage promotion policies directed toward women on welfare, and attacks on reproductive freedom”). Let me be clear…I think everyone should be able to get married, but married families are not more important that unmarried families….

(below is directly quoted from…)

Marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship, and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others. A majority of people – whatever their sexual and gender identities – do not live in traditional nuclear families. They stand to gain from alternative forms of household recognition beyond one-size-fits-all marriage. For example:

·     Single parent households

·     Senior citizens living together and serving as each other’s caregivers (think Golden Girls)

·     Blended and extended families

·     Children being raised in multiple households or by unmarried parents

·     Adult children living with and caring for their parents

·     Senior citizens who are the primary caregivers to their grandchildren or other relatives

·     Close friends or siblings living in non-conjugal relationships and serving as each other’s primary support and caregivers

·     Households in which there is more than one conjugal partner

·     Care-giving relationships that provide support to those living with extended illness such as HIV/AIDS.

okay also this is hilarious…

Keagen: Mr. Cooper, could I just understand your argument. In reading the briefs, it seems as though your principal argument is that same-sex and opposite — opposite-sex couples are not similarly situated because opposite-sex couples can procreate, same-sex couples cannot, and the State’s principal interest in marriage is in regulating procreation. Is that basically correct?

Cooper: I — Your Honor, that’s the essential thrust of our — our position, yes



Filed under Uncategorized

2 responses to “some food for thought

  1. Anna A

    lol @ essential thrust…

    i know this got a lot of press because kennedy is the big man now but i liked how he addressed the “gay marriage harms kids” argument. he’s like, listen to what these kids are saying, they WANT their parents to have equal rights! scalia, are your parents gay? no? then why do you think you can speak for the children of same-sex couples?

  2. yeah for real. like there are thousands and thousands of children in CA alone that can speak to being raised by gay folks… and you asked NONE OF THEM what they think. and then talk some shit about “there is no scientific research about how gay marriage affects kids because its newer than cell phones” … like “2000 years of traditional marriage” is such a scientific, culturally nuanced statement… and thats been working well for EVERY SINGLE PERSON INVOLVED.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s