If you'd woken me up this morning and asked me to rate a number of items according to their unlikelihood of actually occurring, Dan Savage writing an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times would have been fairly high on that list. The guy's a sex and love advice columnist (albeit a subsersive one) and he's gay and talks really dirty (I love that).
But as I found when reading the also subversively sexual Susie Bright's blog (and she was the brightest thing at BlogHer, too), he indeed did write an Op-Ed piece in the paper of record, and OMG.... it rocked.
Via Susie Bright, Dan Savage writing about the recent Washington State decision that only "binary" couples can properly raise children and thus, it is legal and proper to deny marriage equality to same-sex couples:
The courts ruled, essentially, that making my child’s life less secure somehow makes the life of a child with straight parents more secure. Both courts found that making heterosexual couples stable requires keeping homosexual couples vulnerable. And the courts seemed to agree that heterosexuals can hardly be bothered to have children at all — or once they’ve had them, can hardly be bothered to care for them — unless marriage rights are reserved exclusively for heterosexuals. And the religious right accuses gays and lesbians of seeking “special rights.”
Read. Then go break something. I'm going to.
Dammit to hell, I wish people would quit giving me stuff to write about. As the (hetero) adoptive father of 2 children, these cretins, these brain-dead fungi growing on donkey dung make me want to scream. How many of them are adopting children instead of selfishly deciding that their own genetic material is so important that they need to reproduce? I met plenty of gay parents during the adoption procedure, and their motivation to be parents was a pure and loving as any hetero parents. No parents are better than gay parents? I better stop--my blood is nearing 212 F.
Posted by: arlo muttrie | 01 August 2006 at 04:14 PM