February 7, 2011
Cross-posted at Good As You
By Jeremy Hooper
If one heads over to the blog of the Ruth Institute (a National Organization For Marriage affiliate), he or she will find perhaps the most obtuse anti-same-sex marriage argument ever presented. Here’s a snip:
John, show me the statute that prohibits same-sex ‘marriages’. Do you know of anyone who has been prosecuted for ‘marrying’ someone of the same sex? Or who has ever been charged with a crime for doing so? Or even warned that they are breaking the law? It doesn’t happen because it’s not illegal.
Laws like Proposition 8 (for example) don’t prohibit anything, they just define what kind of unions will be sanctioned and privileged by the state. For the government to reach into people’s lives in order to accord special privileges to any kind of relationship, it had better be a matter that is crucial to the general welfare of society. (At least I think so…)
No, no — same-sex marriages aren’t widely unlawful. All those constitutional bans championed by groups like the Ruth Institute and NOM are just there for fun, right?
Ridiculous. Far too many of these folks just don’t get it, or at least won’t admit it. Because we in the organized marriage movement are of course not talking about non-binding commitments, which gays have obviously been enjoying for eons, sometimes even with fancy clothes and even fancier cakes. What we are now seeking, here in 2011 America, is the *CIVIL* MARRIAGE CONTRACT. And yes, that contract is, with 0% of deniability, restricted to heterosexual couples in most American states. Denied to *all* same-sex couples on the federal level.
But then after denying that anything is actually being denied to gays, the Ruth Institute blogger goes on the bizarre path of attempting to justify why such supposed non-denials (but obvious denials) are kosher. The reasoning is primarily about procreation, as it typically is with the NOM crowd. But then the path goes this way:
Same-sex so-called ‘marriage’ does not contribute anything to the general welfare of society, it diminishes the general welfare. Yes, it would certainly be a boost to the self esteem of same-sex couples and their loved ones if Big Brother were to validate those relationships by compelling all of us to treat same-sex unions as equal to actual marriages. (Bringing the force of law to bear to legitimize homosexual relationships – and legally marginalize any of us who refuse to kowtow to that agenda – is the only actual objective of attaining legal recognition of same-sex ‘marriages’, as a matter of fact.)
But the government is not supposed to be in the business of affirming our personal lives just because it makes us feel good – especially when it has to be done at everyone else’s expense. And to accomplish that level of thought control would necessitate the repression of our freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and our right to the free exercise of religion. Allowing people to form same-sex unions – and even call them ‘marriages’ – is one thing, but to legally require that same-sex unions be equated to actual marriages is a very real threat to our civil liberties. Some of us are absolutely determined to hold on to the freedoms we have left, and pass them on to the next generation. We will never surrender.
Again with the ridiculous and offensive idea that this fight is about our self-esteem. Sorry, Ruth Institute, but we’re not hinging our worth on whether or not Jennifer Roback Morse will serve as gay couples’ flower girl. And we’re not asking anyone to “kotwow to [an] agenda,” either. Instead, we are DEMANDING — as in telling everyone, including the Ruth Institute — that the American government will, ultimately, treat us like full and equal citizens of the country in which we live, love, and contribute to on multiple levels (not the least of which being taxes).
The anti-LGBT crowd is forever accusing us of operating on an emotional rather than practical or legal level. But this anti- argument is rife with emotional justification! The whole thing is based around the idea that gays simply want to feel good — a psychological red herring if there ever was one. But that’s actually fine if groups like Ruth Institute want to think this is our impetus. We really don’t care why they fight so passionately against our civil rights under our shared constitution. Just as long as when we ultimately win this legal battle — and we will inevitably win this battle — the passionate opposition movement psychologically prepares itself to get out of the damn way while the rest of us march forward. Down the aisle. Down the path of progress. Upping the general welfare of this great nation as we go.
We will never surrender.