Just Stop: It Isn’t About Protecting Marriage

Obviously, I hammer on the issue relentlessly. (If it makes you feel any better, this weekend I’ll be posting a comprehensive review of some flavored salt I was sent. This site offers you a little bit of everything…)

Earlier, I harkened back to Mike Huckabee’s poor performance from The Daily Show, in which he spluttered about marriage being about the production of children. (Videos here and here.) That, he argued, was why we absolutely couldn’t let gay people get married. As the father of two children out wedlock, his claim was news to me. Snark aside, it is remarkable that somebody who believes so deeply in gay marriage can’t be troubled to actually do anything to protect the instution other than exclude homosexuals.

I can concede that marriage is a damaged brand these days, but if anybody actually thinks that its dings and scrapes are the result of gays wanting the same rights as straights, they’re deluding themselves. Everybody could probably agree that divorce has done more to damage marriage than gays ever could; similar common ground could be found concerning child abuse and piss-poor parenting.

But what’s incredible is that marriage’s self-appointed defenders simply cannot be troubled to propose any measures to deal with the activities that are doing the critical damage. Rather, all of these people who are so deeply troubled by the possibility that gay citizens would be treated as the equal of straight couples can’t muster the energy to propose a single marriage-protecting piece of legislation that hurts straight people.

1. These people advocate Constitutional Amendments against the gays marrying, but can’t argue for amendments that ban divorce?

2. Or, if that’s too punitive against straight people, how about an amendment that bans remarrying?

3. Or, if that’s too punitive against straight people, how about an amendment that bans multiple marriages within a year?

4. Or, if that’s too punitive against straight people, how about an amendment forcibly divorcing couples that cannot produce children? (This one would be particularly harsh, but if Huckabee is right, and the only reason for marriage is to produce children, there is no reason to let the disinterested or physically incapable of getting married, right? They’d be denigrating the insitution with their lack-of-children, according to Huckabee’s logic.)

5. Or, if that’s too punitive against straight people, how about an amendment that strips wife-beaters and child-abusers of their right to get married?

6. Or, if that’s too punitive against straight people, how about an amendment that in any way focuses even remotely on straight people, the only people who are currently allowed to get married nationwide?

For all of the breathless desperation to save the institution of marriage, precious little is being done to actually police the activities of those who can actually get married. For example, Christians themselves, desperate to prevent gays from getting anywhere near the same legal rights that they enjoy, still manage to divorce each other at incredibly high rates. You’d think if you’re going to have the gall to tell another group of people that they’re not welcome at the table because of how seriously they’d devalue marriage that you wouldn’t busy yourself regularly devaluing the insitutition yourself. You’d think.

All of this is, of course, yet more evidence that the real issue here isn’t marriage. It can’t be. If it was, then people like Mike Huckabee would spend as much time working to eliminate the freedoms enjoyed by straights - freedoms which right now allow for infinite marriages, infinite divorces, and allow for these infinites regardless of what you do while married, no matter how irresponsible, no matter how dangerous, no matter how harmful - as he does focused on the nonfreedoms not enjoyed by homosexuals in any state other than Massachusetts and Connecticut.

When Christians who divorce each other regularly decide that its the gays who shouldn’t be married, and then claim that they’re taking that stand to protect the insitution, why should anybody believe that they’re being serious? And doesn’t the logical difficult of their position suggest that something else altogether is going on?

For instance, if you took that evidence that I’ve given you about Christian divorce in the link above (and here’s some more, which clearly suggests that the highest divorce rates occur in the most religious areas, and tend to involve the people that we most intuitively believe would be the least likely to divorce), would it be consistent to believe that these people cared about the institution of marriage? Or is it more reasonable to believe that they’re, at best, not fond of the gays and thus propose to exclude them on that basis?

I’m happy to hear any argument that concisely explains why protecting marriage should involve only those people who cannot legally get married, but I have serious doubts that such an argument exists. If it did, it would have been made by now, and it would include an explanation for why the freedom of straights should not be affected in any way.

(For the record, I don’t actually believe that straights should be punished at all for being irresponsible with their marriages. I have to make this point because I have occasionally had this argument with people who had said that I am not allowed to advocate for that which I wouldn’t actually support myself. That’s a convenient, but stupid, claim.)

Technorati Tags: Gay Marriage, George Barna, Mike Huckabee

Jon Stewart On Gay Marriage

Jon Stewart predictably destroyed Mike Huckabee on gay marriage last night on The Daily Show. He laid out a couple of the very good reasons to support marriage, including one the best:

Why do we protect the rights of those who make decision (for example: the religious) and yet we hold against gays that which they had no power over in the first place? It’s not like these people chose their homosexuality, no matter what some social conservatives will absurdly claim. To punish them for being gay is outrageous.

Note that Huckabee couldn’t cite the moment that he chose to be straight, but many Christians can cite the day that they chose their religious beliefs. You’ll excuse my disbelief at the outrageous double standard.

Technorati Tags: Gay Marriage, Jon Stewart, Mike Huckabee, The Daily Show

Christians Don’t Like Their Religion Misrepresented

It’s the damndest thing when Christians remember how little they enjoy having their lives misconstrued by outsiders. Take, for example, this week’s Newsweek, which is creating all kinds of controversy with its claims that the Bible doesn’t explicitly exclude gay marriage from consideration. The usual suspects are furious, insisting that their positions and beliefs are being misrepresented. They don’t appreciate having outsiders speaking ill of them and the things that they have faith in.

Fair enough.

But wouldn’t thier outrage be a little easier to stomach if they themselves didn’t regularly misrepresent homosexuals and homosexuality?

1. Tony Perkins, who describes the article as, “yet another attack on orthodox Christianity.” Funny that he doesn’t have the same reservations about describing homosexuality as “unnatural” on the website of the group that he runs; I imagine that every single gay person on Earth who reports knowing from a very early age that they were gay might find that “unnatural” claim a bit presumptuous…but that’s just me.

2. Richard Land is frustrated that his arguments are being misconstrued as religious, says in the above article, “The arguments that are used are often not biblical arguments. They are secular arguments, arguing about marriage as being a civic and a social institution, and that societies have a right to define marriage.” Of course, he might object to his own positions being unfairly portrayed, but that didn’t stop him from comparing gay marriage with slavery. Because, obviously, they’re the same thing.

3. And then there’s Maggie Gallagher, one of the most offensive social conservatives, aghast that gays would misconstrue her work, saying that marriage was, “the one necessary adult relation in society – the way we bring together male and female to bring the next generation to life in a way that connects those children in love to their own mother and father.” Of course, she also wrote that we have to think of the children, as they are badly affected when adults focus only on their sexual urges. Because that’s all gays are, you see, sex machines, and are incapable of having or raising children.

I’m sure there are a million reasons why these Christians reserve the right to portray gays as unnatural creatures without the capacity to love who are deadset on imposing their own slavery on us all, but immediately start crying foul when their own beliefs are misrepresented. Honestly, could Christianity do a worse job of finding its loudest voices? It’s one thing to be offended about your portrayal in the media, but it’s quite another to be offended for being treated in precisely the same way that you treat everyone who disagrees with you.

Technorati Tags: Gay Marriage, Homosexuality, Newsweek

This Is Why They’ll Lose

Why in the hell am I incapable of embedding video?

At the end of the day, gay marriage opponents have a problem. Even if they can win battles in the short-term, they’re still arguing for discrimination, and ultimately, there’s nothing particularly fun or enjoyable about discrimination visited against fellow Americans. Gay marriage advocates can, meanwhile, launch protests like the one linked to above. It is likely to entertain everybody but those who will be offended by Jack Black portraying Jesus. (Although [Some] Christians would like us believe otherwise, there aren’t too many people who will be offended by the portrayal.) It is videos like this that will ultimately undo the opposition. They predicate their claims on the notion that gays are a threat, that they’re inherently evil people who are undeserving of equal protection under the law. But American views ultimately end up softening, because they realize that the alleged threat is, in fact, no such thing.

To put that differently: the racists and the sexists ended up losing. So to will the bigots.

(Incidentally, I made it five whole days without mentioning gay marriage. I think. That’s three more than I expected.)

Technorati Tags: Funny or Die, Gay Marriage

Gay Marriage Again

Mitch the Killer has recently pointed out, “You’re writing about the same stuff.”

It was a good point. I have been writing about the same stuff. I acknowledge that it has to get boring after awhile, and I’m happy that so many of you keep stopping by, even though it’d be easy enough to say, “Should I read Sam’s site today? Naaaaah. He’ll just be angry about gay marriage again.” Admittedly, until gay marriage is legal and recognized in every state in the nation, I’ll probably still be fired up about it. However, let this post be the last I write on the issue until the next time it raises my hackles.

But I can’t help by be infuriated whenever I see someone having the audacity to give thanks for the social repression of a minority, as the National Review’s Kathryn Jean Lopez happily does here:

It was the top of the month when the majority of voters in California approved a proposition that would protect the traditional definition of marriage in the state, in the face of renegade courts’ past struggles to redefine this fundamental building block of society. I’m grateful that even voters who most likely helped elect Barack Obama president can see the value in sacred, age-old institutions. I’m grateful that there are people like my friend Maggie Gallagher, who heads the National Organization for Marriage, and fights the good fight for the traditional idea of family, despite viciously unfair enemies and defeatist colleagues.

(An old website I had - www.insulted.org - used to house my attempted holy war against Maggie Gallagher. She just a horrible human being, happily dressing up her viciously anti-gay rhetoric in some of desperate attempt to save the American family. That she is routinely eviscerated by people whenever they examine her nonsense arguments is fantastic.) Let’s ignore the obvious: traditional marriage does not mean what she claims it does, and it never has. Let’s also ignore more obvious: that Kathryn Jean doesn’t advocate for the sorts of things that really would “protect” marriage, like Constitutional amendments banning divorce. Let’s focus briefly on that “unfair enemies” claim.

What in the hell does she mean? Is it unfair to point out that those opposed to gay marriage must hate gays if they’re going to legally ensure their second class citizenship? Is it unfair to oppose people when they attempt to impose their religious views onto nonbelievers? Is it unfair to fight back against nothing more than hate speech hidden behind Jesus’s robes? The answer to these questions is obviously no, there’s nothing at all unfair about fighting back against the sort of bile that Kathryn Jean Lopez and her cronies are responsible for. These people are setting America back, and no reasonable citizen of this nation should tolerate such offensive behavior.

Incidentally, Lopez is one of the many social conservatives who inexplicably believes that the response from gay marriage supporters to the Mormon Church has amounted to unfair behavior:

I’m grateful to live in a country where, although there are people who may run to TV news cameras bearing hateful, anti-Mormon signs and call in threats to Mormon temples because many of the Latter-day faithful supported the proposition, there are also those who will fight for religious liberty, like the folks at the Becket Fund. There are politicians who will speak in its defense, like Mitt Romney. He may get attacked unfairly, in some cases because he is Mormon, but he has a genuine moral core and ethical calling that sets him above petty criticism.

Ignore that crap about Mitt Romney; Lopez was in the tank for Romney for President since he first hinted at it, and she never dropped the torch for her “moral and ethical” candidate. If Lopez can’t figure out why people are pissed at the Mormons - a persecuted religious minority for the majority of their time in America, chased to Utah because nobody wanted to deal with their then racist and polygamous underpinnings, that turned on another minority that threatened the institution of marriage, while at the same time openly tolerating polygamy as long as nobody gets hurt - then she’s dumber than a sack of hammers. The Mormons deserve everything they’ve gotten so far, and hopefully, everything they’re going to get in the future. Eventually, the only thing that will be remembered about that particular church was its pigheaded opposition to gay marriage, not that it illegally demanded its adherents drop $20,000,000 into a state other than Utah in an attempt to “protect marriage.”

As I said earlier, I’ll drop this issue now. Until the next time somebody decides to act like a total moron. So…Monday, probably.

Technorati Tags: Gay Marriage, Mormons