Dan Savage headlined the phrase in a prescient July 2006 op-ed [NYT] reacting to Washington's Supreme Court decision allowing a legislative ban on same-sex marriage:
Washington’s judges went out of their way to make [gay couples' children] disappear, finding that "limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to the survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children’s biological parents." Children, the decision continues, "tend to thrive in families consisting of a father, mother and their biological children.’" A concurring opinion gave the knife a few leisurely twists: due to the “binary biological nature of marriage,” it read, only opposite-sex couples are capable of "responsible child rearing." …
These defeats have demoralized supporters of gay marriage, but I see a silver lining. If heterosexual instability and the link between heterosexual sex and human reproduction are the best arguments opponents of same-sex marriage can muster, I can’t help but feel that our side must be winning. Insulting heterosexuals and discriminating against children with same-sex parents may score the other side a few runs, but these strategies won’t win the game.
And now Washington is on the verge of enacting marriage equality.
The Dish 