A Few Runs Don't Win the Game
Last week Washington's Supreme Court ruled that its state's ban on same-sex marriage did not violate its state's constitution.* Similarly, the New York appeals court found a little while back that marriage should be reserved especially for heterosexuals, to protect children and our species.
Dan Savage, in an op-ed in the NY Times,# wrote
A perverse cruelty characterizes both decisions. The courts ruled, essentially, that making my child’s life less secure somehow makes the life of a child with straight parents more secure. Both courts found that making heterosexual couples stable requires keeping homosexual couples vulnerable. And the courts seemed to agree that heterosexuals can hardly be bothered to have children at all — or once they’ve had them, can hardly be bothered to care for them — unless marriage rights are reserved exclusively for heterosexuals. And the religious right accuses gays and lesbians of seeking “special rights.”
Even if you believe that marriage plays a special role in the lives of heterosexuals with children (another point I’m happy to concede), can it not play a similar role in the lives of homosexual couples, whether they’re parents or not? Marriage, after all, is not reserved for couples with children. (Perhaps it will be soon, if courts keep heading in this direction.)
[…]
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.
Aren't these excuses finally reaching the stage where even normal people can see how ridiculous they are? (I ask rhetorically.)
———-
*At the moment; I expect it will later on.
#Dan Savage, "Same-Sex Marriage Wins by Losing", New York Times, 30 July 2006.
2 Responses
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Leave a Reply
To thwart spam, comments by new people are held for moderation; give me a bit of time and your comment will show up.
I welcome comments -- even dissent -- but I will delete without notice irrelevant, rude, psychotic, or incomprehensible comments, particularly those that I deem homophobic, unless they are amusing. The same goes for commercial comments and trackbacks. Sorry, but it's my blog and my decisions are final.
on Monday, 31 July 2006 at 15.23
Permalink
During the recent House debate, Rep. Barney Frank kept pressing the other side for reasons,facts and logical arguments. Mostly all he got in response from the other side was conjecture, emotional appeals and sketchy allusions to biblical admonitions.
Oh, and protestations of not being against gays as individual people. Lots of those.
I think you are right. The arguments of those opposed are beginning to sound ridiculous to all but the most bigoted and backward.
Christian right opponents would probably do better to just come out and say what they feel: gay marriage is just too weird and different from long-established tradition, that the whole idea puts them off. Plus, they don't want to have to explain the difference to their kids because they're not comfortable talking about such things with their kids. Plus, they worry if they explain such things to their kids, their kids might get unwholesome ideas. And so on.
If they get to the point of being that honest, I think there would be some chance for constructive discussion.
on Monday, 31 July 2006 at 16.03
Permalink
"Honest" is a bit much to ask for, don't you think?
I've been amazed at how the length of time over which "traditional marriage" has existed "unchanged" has lengthened. I first heard it, I think as "hundreds" of years; before you knew it, it was up to "a thousand", "at least two thousand", "thousands", then finally "since creation".
Apparently we are now to consider Adam & Eve as having been "married", thus portraying the "traditional family" with all its foibles (like Cain, the murderer). But were they married? Was it a common-law marriage? Maybe they were just domestic partners, and that was the origin of original sin.
I've thought about making a graph of these claimed time-periods for "traditional marriage" vs. time, so that we can see the exponential escalation. "Honesty" aside, the extreme conservative's gift for hyperbole is astounding.