Stewart: But wouldn't you say that society has an interest in understanding that the homosexual community also wants to form those same bonds, and raise children, and wouldn't, uh... a monogamous, good-hearted, virtuous, homosexual couple be in society's best interests in raising a child rather than, uh... a-a heterosexual couple with adultery, with alcohol issues, with other things--? By the way, I don't even mean to make that sound as though a gay couple can only raise a child given failures in other couples.
Santorum: Well that's--you're, you're matching up best-case versus worst-case.
Which is the entire frigging point. Enacting a blanket ban on gay marriage is degrading in the same way that the Jim Crow laws were--it says that the best gay couple is not worth as much as even the lowliest straight couple.
Case in point:
I've seen some stupid people in my life, but this one just may take the cake. A woman in California was shot 4 times by her boyfriend. He and his family then held her hostage, refusing to take her to the hospital. The idiot who shot her happened to mention to a family friend that he was holding his critically wounded girlfriend to a family friend, and that friend called the police. The boyfriend was sentenced to 20 years in prison, but the idiot girlfriend wrote a letter to the judge asking him to go easy on the guy:"I love Christian today as deeply as I loved him before this awful thing happened to us," Stebbins wrote in a victim impact statement. "We are soul mates."
...
And here's the kicker - the law would allow them to get married because they're straight, but gay couples who've been together for years and love one another - and, ya know, have never shot one another 4 times and held them hostage - why, we can't allow that to happen. That would undermine the "sanctity of marriage."
No comments:
Post a Comment