Archive - Apr 6, 2009
6 April, 2009 - 13:11 — Bryan Lambert
Memo to Iowans: COMMENCE FREAKOUT... NOW.
Another state, another set of "activist" judges, and another incremental victory in the courts on gay marriage. Yes, Iowa. Smack dab in the middle of the heartland. Corn country. Fittingly, the fictional home of James T. Kirk, who still holds the record for most portrayals as a homosexual in fan fiction. Take that, Harry Potter. Yes, the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously decided that the state can't withhold its civic benefits to a couple just because they have the same genitalia, and there was much rejoicing. Oh, and bitching. There's always bitching.
Which means it's time, once again, to smack down the most common arguments against gay marriage. If only there were a place, like the comments section of a major metropolitan newspaper reporting on the Iowa decision, where I could find all the stupid arguments against gay marriage assembled in one convenient place. What's that, you say? Such a place exists? Thank you, Star Tribune, for giving your readers a voice.
Next Up: Legalized Polygamy!
Um, no. Not because polygamy is wrong, or necessarily should be illegal, but because it's a lot more complicated than just extending marriage to gays. Civil marriage is a set of privileges and responsibilities shared between two people, and none of those actual privileges or responsibilities are gender-specific. Legal poly marriage would raise issues with all kinds of tax and benefit issues - how many wives can you cover under your job's family health plan? Plural marriage is different from regular marriage. Gay marriage just makes you uncomfortable. And your discomfort doesn't matter.
Next Up: Marrying Dogs!
Um, no. Dogs aren't people, you bigoted fuckwad.
The minority is imposing its immoral ways on the majority of Americans!
Um, no. Your morality is only impacted in that it is no longer enshrined in Iowa's public policy, forcing others to live their lives by your moral code. Your own personal "moral" life isn't affected in any way, because even if your bigotry stems from you being a deeply troubled closet case, you'll never admit it to yourself and take advantage of gay marriage. So you can remain moral, not marry someone of the same gender, and not feel imposed upon in the slightest. You may experience some feelings of discomfort if you are the type to be inexplicably affected by the actions of others that don't really affect you, but that's your fucking problem, isn't it?
This next one deserves more than a paraphrase. ACTUAL QUOTE TIME!
"GAY MARRIAGE HAS NEVER HAPPENED IN HUMAN HISTORY."
Sulu's husband would beg to differ, assmunch.
Gays have the right to get married. They just can't marry someone of the same sex!
I can only presume that I will have the support of everyone who's ever made this argument when I introduce my new voting law, the "You Must Vote For Democrats Act Of 2009". Because clearly, taking away your right to vote for who you want to isn't the same as taking away your right to vote.
Illegal aliens will use this to pair up and become citizens!
That's Immigration and Naturalization's problem, the same way it is for all the other couples. Duh. Still, bonus points for the bigotry double-play.
Why can't incestuous marriages be legal, then?
Because incestuous marriages might actually result in children, and the children of incestuous relationships tend to have genetic problems that result in birth defects, medical problems, and voting Republican.
It's always been this way.
Tough shit. It's simple. The reason we, as a society, are supposed to make laws against things is that the things we're making laws against hurt society. We rarely hold to that ideal, but that's how the system was set up to work. Now, clearly, if you oppose gay marriage, you think it harms society. Yet strangely, in over 350 posts, only ONE gay marriage opponent proposed an actual mechanism by which gay marriage would harm society. That mechanism? That we would anger God and he would destroy us like he did Sodom and Gomorrah.
That's it. That's the only mechanism anyone can come up with for the actual existence of societal harm. That a , invisible deity who hasn't stepped in to stop an atrocity in recorded human history will wipe us off the map because we're letting loving, committed homosexuals visit each other in the hospital. Which is, as viewpoints go, fucking deranged, but at least it's more than most people manage.
So where's your mechanism? Show your work. Provide evidence from the five years of gay marriage in Massachusetts that your mechanism is occurring. I don't care if you think it's icky. I don't care if your book thinks it's icky. If we, as a society of gays and straights, conservative and liberal, fundamentalist and atheist, are going to collectively agree to keep gay marriage out of our society, we need a good reason. And you don't have one. If you had one, someone would have presented it by now. You have tradition and religion and bigotry, and while America has a shameful history of enshrining all three into law, that's no longer good enough in Iowa. Sucks to be you.