Thursday, February 15, 2007

I'm all kinds of crazy, but I try not to show it

So we have doo-ra Tennessee representative Stacy Campfield pushing a bill that would grant death certificates to aborted fetuses, despite the fact that they were never legally alive. Yes, I realize that some states give them for miscarried babies, but that seems more ceremonial than legal, honestly. I also realize that every right winger who is against abortion thinks life starts at conception. If life started at conception the little parasites would be able to survive outside their human host, wouldn't they? Regardless, the notion of such a bill is ridiculous, and can only lead to an extreme lack of privacy on the part of all women who have abortions.

There is also an initiative some nutjob organization (oops. see my note below) is trying to get on the ballot in Washington state that would require heterosexual couples to have children within three years of marriage or have their marriage annulled. So basically, only people willing or able to have children would be allowed to be married, and thus reap all the benefits marriage have to offer (because, you know, there are so many). Obviously, such an initiative, even if by some freak force of backwards nature it was passed, would eventually be struck down as unconstitutional (as any law disallowing homosexual marriage should be struck down, but that is beside the point here), but what are these people thinking? Fine, if you want to start a church that will only marry people under such conditions, fine, but excuse the hell out of me if I can't or won't have children.

Now I realize sentiments such as the two cases I presented here are rampant among some people. I know they have such discussions amongst their own kind and speak of many things that would limit the rights and freedoms of people they don't agree with, but that doesn't mean you should speak these things aloud. I mean sure, I talk with my liberal friends all the time about laws that would require that every anti-abortion activist in America has to adopt a child that they prevented from being aborted, but I wouldn't put such initiatives out there in public or anything. People, you've got to keep your crazy to yourselves. Otherwise everything you do and say just sounds like a big joke. And if people are laughing at you chances are they won't vote for you or your insane initiatives. If Hitler had kept his nutter opinions to himself he might still be alive today, along with several million Jews and thousands of soldiers. There is a fine line between crazy and fascism, as soon as y'all learn that, we'll be ok.

NOTE: I stand corrected on one point, it seems. The Washington organization started their initiative to help prove how nutty some of these laws are, their intent seems to be similar to the point I am making. Good thing they are in a state like Washington, though, because an initiative like that might actually pass in the bible belt. But, you gotta wonder what kind of con law the judges of the Washington Supreme Court studied:

The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance seeks to defend equal marriage in this state by challenging the Washington Supreme Court’s ruling on Andersen v. King County. This decision, given in July 2006, declared that a “legitimate state interest” allows the Legislature to limit marriage to those couples able to have and raise children together. Because of this “legitimate state interest,” it is permissible to bar same-sex couples from legal marriage.


Stephanie said...

Hi. Love your blog.

Just so you know - The law requiring married couples to have children by 3 years is being persued by a homosexual group to try and prove a tongue in cheek point regarding Washington State's stance on homosexual unions. The State Supreme Court basically said that the whole point of marriage was procreation and therefore not applicable to homosexuals. However, most US Gay and Lesbian orgs are not supporting the persuance of the law.

melusina said...

Thanks Stephanie, I guess I could have read more from the site of the organization but when I went to the link with the initiatives I got so irritated that it was another Fred Phelps type organization.

At least they are trying to prove the same point I am making in this post.

Jay3gsm said...

Little parasites? Is that really how you view children, or did I miss the sarcasm/irony/tongue-in-cheek point? A child is hardly going to survive on it's own, either after the point of conception or after birth. A child will need care and attention for a few years after that, too! (Some would say a child NEVER loses it's dependence on its parents!) :-)

J.Doe said...

I understand that the Homosexual group was trying to prove a point with their ridiculous initiatives but I was offended by those same initiatives. Like you said, not everyone wants or can have children and I really don't need to be reminded of that fact just so they can make a political point. I agree with their right to have marriages if they so want, but I don't think it's right to offend people just to make a political statement. If they keep on doing it, I just may change my mind.

Anonymous said...

If life started at conception the little parasites would be able to survive outside their human host, wouldn't they?

You are one sick and twisted evolution of a parasite.

melusina said...

Jay, of course it was sarcasm. Although ask any doctor, "technically" a fetus IS a parasite. I've had pregnant friends make fun of that fact and call their unborn babies their little parasites.

J.Doe, definitely, it is extreme. I guess they feel the need to go to extremes to try to get the supreme court decision overturned.

Anonymous, oh yay, a new fan! Obviously I'm sick and twisted. I keep a blog, don't I?