FMA Holes

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: If you think giving gay couples basic legal rights might somehow infringe on your marriage, you need a marriage counselor, not a constitutional amendment.

Bush and his right-wing extremist cronies would do well to look at the Human Rights Campaign's Top Ten Reasons for Marriage Equality. But, let's face it: those folks won't look at anything that doesn't uphold their intolerant views. So perhaps instead we should at what Focus on the Family says about same-sex marriage:

Marriage is not just a private affair. Every marriage is a public virtue in that it responsibly regulates human sexuality, brings the two parts of humanity together in a cooperative and mutually beneficial relationship and it delivers mothers and fathers to children.

So, if I'm understanding Focus on the Family correctly, marriage is a purely public entity, and not a legal agreement between two loving individuals? You know what: that does sound kind of familiar. Where have I heard that philosophy espoused before.

Why yes -- it was during my last trip to Oceania:

All marriages between Party members had to be approved by a committee appointed for the purpose, and -- though the principle was never clearly stated -- permission was always refused if the couple concerned gave the impression of being physically attracted to one another. The only recognized purpose of marriage was to beget children for the service of the Party.