BUNDLED SERVICES

One anti-gay marriage opinion column, three arguments, three logical fallacies. That's efficiency!

1. It is not the business of judges to make public policy.

Red herring with a dose of false dilemma. The question is about the legality of gay marriage, not some tired talking point about activist judges greedily re-writing the law. Disputes over marriage laws end up in the legal system because that is where we resolve legal disputes. He attempts to bolster that argument by (subjectively and pejoritatively) characterizing legal decision-making as "mak(ing) public policy." That's one way to describe it. Alternatively, I'd characterize the courts' work as "fulfilling their vital and constitutionally mandated responsibility to our democratic system by providing a peaceful and impartial forum for the resolution of disputes over matters of law." But that's just me.

2. The radical transformation of marriage won't end with same-sex weddings.

Slippery slooooooooooooooooooope! Man on llama! Man on tree! Orgies! Pedophilia! Corpsefucking! Bigamy! Trigamy! Mormon Hold'em! Circle jerks! Cleveland steamers! Alabama hot pockets! Tennessee taco swaps! Daisy chains for satan! Where will it stop??!?!11!?!?!one?!?!!!!!!one!111!!???

3. Society has a vested interest in promoting only traditional marriage.

Which is why we have drive-thru Vegas weddings and no-questions-asked quickie divorces, right? Our legal and social respect for the sacred institution of Hetero Marriage is clearly deep and abiding. That is why two intelligent and committed gay people cannot get married but two mouthbreathing idiots can meet in a trailer park, bond over their shared struggle against rickets, and get married in 10 minutes at the courthouse before rushing home to tend to their meth labs. Their inevitable divorce, motivated by the realization that married people qualify for fewer food stamps, will be just as rapid. The author goes on to connect marriage and the production of children, apparently unaware that the latter can occur in the absence of the former. Sure, a solid marriage is a good environment for child-raising. But the author fails to support his implication that it is either the best or only one.

And, for the record, the lowest divorce rate in the nation? Liberal, elitist, homo-loving Massachusetts. The highest, discounting Nevada? Rednecked, god-fearing, homo-hating Arkansas.

(thanks, non-seq)

Be Sociable, Share!

7 Responses to “BUNDLED SERVICES”

  1. Ike Says:

    I wish these folks would just be honest for once, step up to the bench and say, "Your honor, my religion tells me that such-and-such matter under consideration is offensive/abborant/bad and I would like to convey this fact on behalf of my fellow believers, who are concerned with the outcome of this case."

    If faith has to be upheld by all sorts of devious, careful, lawyering, what good is it? Maybe there are some atheist gay-haters but I doubt they make up the majority of the people ranting and raving and writing this kind of editorial. Maybe "because God said so in the Bible" really isn't good enough for them, and all their wordplay and explanation is to try and make themselves believe it. Faith, by definition, doesn't need a logical explanation. Trying to fabricate one just cheapens it.

    "Those people will ruin the neighborhood" really means, "I don't want my child growing up with a gay couple next door because she'll ask me awkward questions about the sin that they do," which to me sounds like, "I don't know how to communicate my religious beliefs to my child so that she will be able to make lifestyle choices that will please me." Since they believe gayness is a choice rather than a quality, why can't they put it in the same stack with "don't do drugs" and "don't have premarital sex?" Oh. Having problems with that too?

  2. Brandon Says:

    Nice post. I love the reference he makes to an "imperial judiciary." Also, the implication he makes under the third argument that marriage is only valid and socially beneficial insofar as it produces children. Good to know that by not having children so far my wife and I are doing our part in destroying the institution of marrage.

  3. j Says:

    As a loving husband, meth user, and rickets patient, I am deeply offended by this post.

  4. Mike Q Says:

    I grew up in a Catholic home and, subsequently, am not religious. What bothers me the most though is that people try to have control over what others do in a given religion rather than reflecting on themselves. How does one gay couple getting married impact your life? I would say it probably doesn't unless you make it your problem. It's like the whole "war on Christmas" crap. Does it really make that much of a difference if you say "happy holidays"? Is it going to absolutely ruin your life to compromise a little?

    I understand that my points may be contentious, but thats just my atheistic perspective. Quite honestly, I don't care. = )

  5. Rob Says:

    "Society has a vested interest in promoting only traditional marriage."

    And the reason for this is what again? Because same-sex couples cannot procreate?! Yes – that makes a lot of sense… I mean, clearly all this world needs is MORE GODDAMN PEOPLE!!

    Or maybe it comes down to government stinginess. The plethora of religious nutcases make an excellent tool in this case – just trot them out periodically and we're not being greedy or biased… We're just protecting the Venerable Institute of Marriage.

  6. Keroscene Says:

    hey, i found this doing a search for this fancy gin that i wanted to by for my father-in-law who's retiring today after 31 years of counseling community college students. of course, i can't remember the name. the label looks like old-timey sailor booze. anyhoo, I LOVE THIS BLOG!!! coming to you from the land of taco trucks that believe it or not, are also under the gun from the man: outside of LA proper, they've got to move every 30 minutes or hour or face a 1000K fine. fuckers. Keep fighting and RIDE ON!!!

  7. Ladiesbane Says:

    “Society has a vested interest in promoting only traditional marriage.”

    People who say this seem only to want "traditional marriage" to reflect their own comfort levels. Whenever I ask if they mean to criminalize interracial marriage again, they are offended that I would ask.

    Criminalizing gay marriage seems worse to me (at least as bad) as any other "separate but equal" doctrine. Of course, every day the U.S. looks more like Germany in the 30's….