Defense-less: Or How To Not Make a Valid Point
Jan/100
The proponents of Proposition 8 (@ProtectMarriage) linked an interesting article on Twitter today The article was published on Townhall.com, titled “Proposition 8 Trial: Loving the Sparkliest Person Vs. The Needs of Society” and attempts to make the case against marriage equality.
The first point the article makes is based on a quote from Kristin Perry, one of four plaintiffs named in the case (Perry v. Schwarzenegger), is describing how she fell in love with her partner: “I remember thinking that she was the sparkliest person I’d ever met.” Now, I’ll admit to not really understanding what she means by this. How does a person achieve the quality of “sparkly”, but I assume it to be a term of endearment between the couple. The author of this piece, however, chooses this seemingly innocuous passage for her first salvo:
“I do not believe that those who find another to be the sparkliest—or the most wonderful, or the most attractive, or the most brilliant person ever—should necessarily qualify for state sanction in marriage.”
First, who is she to judge why it is that someone falls in love with another person. Second, the plaintiff didn’t say this was the only reason she’d fallen for her, just one.
We’re through two paragraphs and already we’ve determined that the author doesn’t have any truly credible points, but let’s keep going, because this will be fun.
Later, the author cedes a point that you’d think would void her argument: “I do think it’s true that California marriage law discriminates against same-sex couples.” Game. Set. Match. Let the gays marry and move along. No? Oh, there’s more…
“Couples where both partners are the same gender are treated differently from couples where the partners are of opposite sexes. That’s called ‘discrimination based on sex.’ Which for many purposes is perfectly legal, and which advocates of gay marriage do not seek to change.”
There’s a kind of valid argument here, but not in the way the author thinks. She goes on to list one legitimate discrimination case that should be ended (women not required to register for the draft), but then lists two that aren’t viewed as discrimination (segregated bathrooms and prisons). I won’t get into my opinions on the draft (which extends to DADT), but on the later argument I see there being legitimate grounds for this separation, but also a not too hard to make case for ending the segregation. Regardless, both arguments have nothing to do with marriage and the gender discrimination imposed on gay Americans.
The fun really begins in the next paragraph, though, where we trot out the “slippery slope”:
“…[n]one of them are willing to insist on complete freedom, though they may seek it later on. They don’t plead for polygamy or polyandry; they don’t march for incest; they don’t claim that children, or any collection of in-love, committed people should gain state-approval as a ‘marriage.’”
There’s no real argument here, but I’ll go ahead and refute their points.
Incest is prohibited because the children of incestuous relationships are more likely to suffer birth defects. Want proof? European royalty has a history of anemia among other conditions. This is what’s called a legitimate government interest, because healthy citizens are more productive. This argument is only included because of the gross out factor, and it allows them to talk about pedophilia.
Children aren’t allowed to enter into any contract (which is what marriage is), based on their relative immaturity. There is an accepted tradition of growth from childhood into adulthood and when they reach the accepted maturity level. And this is only raised for the same reason as incest.
As for polygamy (and polyandry, which I give the author credit for including), there is no real rational reason to deny this, and not even the argument of “tradition” holds up to this. Throughout all of human history, a surprisingly large number of cultures have practiced this at some point in their development. But I digress…
We now get the best part of the article, wherein the author tells me that I’m fighting for something I already have:
“And as for ‘the freedom to marry.’ well, anyone is free to perform a non-state-recognized wedding.”
She presents examples of nuns being “married to the Church” and hippie communes. This is just nonsense. The point of fighting for marriage equality has absolutely nothing to do with dressing up and walking down the aisle to a dais where someone witnesses us make vows of love and fidelity. It’s about the rights, responsibilities and protections that come with a marriage recognized by the state and country of our residence.
“Actually, though marriage laws may assume or specify the genders of participants, neither gender is treated differently, or suffers any discrimination. Any individuals able to legally marry one of the opposite sex. That includes everyone, and excludes or discriminates against no one.” [Emphasis as written.]
Well, gee. Thanks. You’re so generous.
And she wraps it up by laying out the red herring of the entire debate.
“I do think that for many on the left, the underlying aim is to dissolve the institution of marriage altogether.”
We’ve been found out. All along, the gay rights movement has been pushing marriage equality so we can destroy it from within. That’s also why we want to serve openly in the US Military, and not have to worry about being fired from our jobs just for being gay. The entire gay agenda is focused on destroying the very fabric of America from the inside.
Wow. What a load.
Flickr
