Originally Posted by maddensmom
I don't know anything about your personal life, but I do believe that it would be easy for a person who has (or had) no problem having children, or that doesn't want them to say. For those of us who have fertility issues, this is a very painful button to be pushed. We do understand the point that they are trying to make, and we realize that the bill has a snowballs chance in hell of passing. More than anything else its just the emotional aspect of all of this. Someone without fertility issues (and this is not directed at you personally) could never understand the heartbreak that it really is.
Or, with all due respect, it could just be a case of people posting their own opinions since, after all, this IS the "In my Opinion" forum. Please don't imply that those of us who have a strong opinion about this, despite the point that the bill is trying to make (and the fact that it won't pass) shouldn't have our opinions heard as well because they don't add up with yours.
Or, with all due respect, it could just be a case of people having cognitive dissonance.
I have not written, suggested or otherwise implied that anyone here is not entitled to their own opinion. I sympathise - in fact - I empathise - with the fact that this is a "painful button" for you, and for many others.
Frankly, it just never occured to me that so many harsh comments could be being made by our members if they had read the article and understood it.
This is a group of people fighting against bigotry. Why is it wrong of them to try to make it your problem as well? You have an emotional investment in your own situation - all Wa-DOMA are trying to say is that if - as is currently the law
- same sex marriages are invalid because children can't issue, than what makes the marriage of a heterosexual couple immune to this requirement?
Before you get mad, again - and I do understand that it's hard to take a deep breath when an issue is personal - please reflect on the degree to which the abolition movement, or suffragette movement or Civil Rights movement would have succeeded if they hadn't been able to count on support from outside their "group". Old white men passed the amendments that ended slavery and gave women the right to vote. Some did it from their own conscious, while others needed the prodding of their constituents, but it wasn't something that fell out of the sky into the group-in-question's laps - they won it by somehow making those outside of their group invested in their movment.
That's all they're trying to do.
They want you to look at this iniative and say "what if that was me"? You already know that it's a stunt, that it won't pass. But without your support, this fallacious double standard will still be applied to them. If your marriage should be valid - regardless of whether or why you do or do not have kids - why shouldn't theirs?
And if the stunt itself seems offensive to you, perhaps you ought to reflect on how offensive the everyday cavalier attitude toward gay marriage is to anyone for whom this a "painful" issue.
Edited to add:
Or, to quote the song, "let us turn our thoughts today to Martin Luther King": who reminds us "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere". I-957 is just another way of saying that.