Radio talk show host and Townhall columnist Michael (“Let a wince be your umbrella”) Medved is clearly alarmed by a new poll which shows, for the first time, that a majority of Americans now favor marriage equality. Fortunately, he has an innate degree in Natural Law, and presumably at some point passed the Natural Bar Exam, which entitles him to overrule Judge Vaughn Walker’s 136-page decision, because it was composed on a computer or other infernal device, and printed on paper, rather than hand-carved in basalt tablets like the Decalogue.
Gay Marriage Myths and Truth
The decision by federal judge Vaughan Walker to invalidate California’s Proposition 8 both recycles and revives some of the tired, misleading clichés regarding the same sex marriage controversy. These distortions demand direct, concise correction and rebuttal.
1. “Proposition 8 was a mean-spirited ban on gay marriage.”
And these direct, concise corrections apparently demand made-up quotes to rebut.
TRUTH: Proposition 8 banned nothing.
The fact that gay and lesbians couples were legally prevented from getting married after Proposition 8 passed is a coincidence. If you bothered to investigate the facts, you’d see that so many gay couples tied the knot during the five months when marriage equality was the law in California, they they exhausted the state’s supply of tiny groom-shaped cake toppers, because they were going through them at twice the normal rate!
Not sure what happened with the lesbians. Maybe a new season of Ice Road Truckers started, or something.
The ubiquitous headlines describing this voter-mandated change in the California constitution as a “gay marriage ban” amount to the worst example of journalistic malpractice in recent years.
Even worse than when all those reporters uncritically passed on Administration claims that Saddam Hussein was gay marrying Kurds in his rape rooms!
The entire proposition consisted of only fourteen words: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
Whereas the notorious “Three-fifths compromise,” required 54 words to declare that slaves were only fractionally human; so say what you want about the ways in which the American political class has degenerated since the days of the Founding Fathers, at least our bigots are terse.
This simple statement imposes no restrictions and issues no commands regarding the behavior of private citizens: it merely demands a change in the actions of government.
From mandating equal protection to requiring discrimination against a portion of its citizenry. But it was approved by California voters, and in a democracy, the government should reflect and uphold the prejudices of the people. Otherwise, people have to discriminate individually, face-to-face, and even a libertarian would find that exhausting.
Proposition 8 did nothing to interfere with gay couples in registering for state-recognized civil unions, participating in church or civil ceremonies consecrating their love, forming life-time commitments, raising children, or concluding comprehensive contractual arrangements to share all aspects of life and property. The proposition simply says that government will not get involved in any of these private or public processes by calling such relationships a marriage.
The government isn’t getting involved in the personal lives of homosexuals, it’s just telling them that they can’t get married unless it’s to a chick. Or a dude in the case of lesbians, although a majority of California voters are in favor of allowing an opposite-married lesbian to keep her female partner, so long as the honeymoon is streamed over the internet, and at a some point the groom shows up to deliver a pizza.
2. “Proposition 8 singled out gays and lesbians for discriminatory treatment.”
TRUTH: The proposition never mentioned gays, lesbians or any other individuals, whatever their sexual orientation. It didn’t discriminate among individuals; it drew distinctions among relationships.
Exactly. In California, “a miscegenation law passed in 1901 [made it] unlawful for white persons to marry ‘Mongolians,’” and while the intention of state legislators was to prevent caucasians from wedding Chinese immigrants or Chinese-Americans, if you look at the law itself, it’s plain that it only prohibits intermarriage between white people and yurt residents from Ulaan Bator.
Under the proposition, a gay male and a straight male would face exactly the same options in marriage—free to choose any woman who is not already married or a blood relative.
For the same reason, a proposition criminalizing abortion would not be unduly burdensome to women, because any man terminating his pregnancy would be subject to the very same legal sanctions.
The fact that the gay man won’t want to marry any of the women available to him doesn’t change the fact that he and his straight neighbor face precisely the same opportunities and restrictions in their marital choices.
This is the well-established Common Law legal principle known as merda durus, or “tough shit.”
3. ”Failure to sanction gay marriage is based on the assumption that “same sex couples simply are not as good as opposite sex couples.” (This language appears verbatim in the judge’s decision).
Oh, you mean you’re going to address an actual argument against Prop 8, rather than slap-fighting with your My Size Wicker Man doll? I feel refweshed.
TRUTH: Opposition to government sanction of gay marriages isn’t based on the notion that opposite sex couples are “better,” but on the idea that they are more consequential, and serve an important social purpose more effectively.
“We’re not saying straight people are better than gays. We’re just saying they’re more important.”
Laws in every state recognize the desirability that children should be raised by their biological parents, wherever possible.
And yet, despite the clarity of the law, the state failed to make my parents stay together and raise me. I believe this is because straight marriage had a monopoly at the time, and if some gay marriages had been thrown into the mix, it would have introduced an element of healthy competition that would have required my parents to provide better services in order to maintain their market share.
This is based on the universal, common sense assumption
…that slavery is God’s will, and a menstruating woman is leaking demons.
that a child generally will fare best if it is raised by both its birth mother and birth father.
And a Townhall columnist will find it easier to meet his word count if he just squats above his keyboard and craps out random sentences and undigested kernels of wingnut propaganda, rather than sit there, staring at his screensaver, while his brain grunts and sweats over an argument.
4. “Recognizing gay marriage would do nothing to harm existing opposite sex marriages.”
TRUTH: The problem with government endorsement of same sex marriage isn’t damage it would do to current heterosexual couples, but the profound change it would bring to the institution of marriage itself.
“Fine, marriage equality won’t affect society except to make it a little more just and a little less hypocritical. But we are all interested in the future, for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.”
In every civilization known to historians and anthropologists, marriage involves the union of man and woman–
–or a man and several women. But the important thing is, if you marry a woman, her dad owes you two goats or one cow, so if you currently reside in an apartment building with a strict pets policy, you should probably just live together.
and the recognition that combining the two genders produces a durable unit
Almost half the time!
that is very different from any all-male or all-female combination.
For instance, they tend to fight more over what movie to go see.
The argument for gay marriage depends on the discredited and destructive idea that men and women are identical—that your marriage will be the same whether you select a male or female partner.
Actually, I doubt that any two heterosexual marriages are identical. But it seems to me the argument for marriage equality depends on the self-evident notion that both gays and straights are human beings with an equal capacity and need for love. And if you think that’s a “discredited and destructive idea,” then you’re clearly a hate-ridden little sociopath who ought to have his own marriage license — if not his birth certificate — revoked.
Gay marriage also separates the institution of marriage from the process of childbearing
As seen in the book, Heather Has No Mommies.
at a time when we need to reaffirm that children fare best within a marriage, and marriage becomes more significant when it produces children.
My marriage sucks, apparently.
5. “Denying marriage rights to same sex couples is the equivalent of denying marriage rights to inter-racial couples before 1967.”
TRUTH: The old and hateful laws barring interracial marriage directly discriminated against individuals based on their race—a discrimination explicitly prohibited by the Constitution.
Yeah, it was great how they finally got around to adding that to the Constitution in 1870. And it was a mere 97 years before it took effect. Where’s the fire, homos?
The language of the Constitution never mentions (or even hints at) similar protection for sexual orientation. Before Loving v. Virginia struck down the evil anti-miscegenation laws, such legislation treated a black man and a white man completely differently: the African-American couldn’t marry a white woman, but the white guy could. As noted above, under Proposition 8 a lesbian woman got exactly the same marriage options as a heterosexual woman; there was no potential mate that the straight woman could choose, but the gay woman couldn’t.
This same argument was used in favor of those “old and hateful “laws,” since “miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites ‘equally.’” And of course, black people had the same right as whites to marry, so long as their intended spouse was another black person. But sometimes your life partner doesn’t appear on the government-approved menu: ”Justice Roger Traynor flatly rejected the shopworn claim that miscegenation laws applied ‘equally’ to all races. ‘A member of any of these races,’ Traynor explained, ‘may find himself barred by law from marrying the person of his choice and that person to him may be irreplaceable.”
And what do you want to bet, Michael, that before “the evil anti-miscegenation laws” were struck down, there were people whose opinions and religious convictions were roughly analogous to yours, who published articles and pamphlets that offered the TRUTH about racially mixed marriages, and why all the arguments in favor of overturning anti-miscegenation laws were just a bunch of “myths.”
6. “Any gay marriage ban is an invasion of privacy.”
TRUTH: Actually, opposition to gay marriage involves the defense of privacy from governmental intrusion, not any sort of intimate assault. The drive to mandate gay marriage demands a vast expansion of governmental involvement into same sex relationships – relationships in which the right bureaucratic policy would be strict neutrality. Proposition 8 mandated no change in private relationships and only an alteration in public policy.
You queers don’t want to get on the grid, do you? Go Galt now, while you still can!
7. “Governmental recognition for gay marriage is necessary to end oppression of gay people.”
TRUTH: All Studies and surveys indicate that gay people in America hardly constitute an oppressed minority; on average, they enjoy higher levels of education and income than the heterosexual majority.
“Just because the Jews can’t vote or own property doesn’t mean they’re not making a killing in the shmatte trade.”
This is like saying Feminism was necessary to stop women from being burned at the stake as witches
I bet you girls are feeling a little silly now about all that unnecessary bra smoke you inhaled.
Even in the federal trial just concluded, the plaintiffs’ attorneys presented abundant evidence of the remarkable success and eminence of homosexual couples in the United States. The undeniable fact that gay people have achieved these personal and communal victories even without gay marriage, is an indication that the traditionally privileged position for heterosexual marriage hasn’t blocked homosexuals from successful participation in every aspect of American life.
Do you deny that Negroes are amongst our most successful and respected minstrel show performers? And just try getting a job as a Pullman porter when you’ve got red hair and freckles!
Nice job, Michael. On the Giant Flaming Strawman Scale you scored…
A Screaming Christopher Lee with Hair Standing on End. A very solid showing. Congratulations!