When all else is stripped away - and there isn't even that much to be stripped away - the sole basis for opposing gay marriage comes down to reactionary religious based discrimination. A form of discrimination which, if allowed, makes a travesty of the U.S. Constitution's purported guarantee of freedom of religion for ALL citizens. Not just conservative Christians. Now the Baltimore Sun - Maryland's largest newspaper - has published an editorial that states that not only Proposition 8 needs be be struck down, but ALL legislative and state constitutional bans on same sex marriage. The nutcases at FRC, CWFA and other professional Christians who make a comfortable living disseminating hate (like Maggie Gallagher) must be convulsing on the floor with spittle flying. The fact that a paper like the Sun would stake such a bold position underscores that while they have been winning battles, long term the Christianists are losing the so-called culture wars. Here are editorial highlights: *
The main argument by lawyers defending the law — that the primary purpose of marriage is reproduction and child-rearing — faced tough questioning by Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who repeatedly asked why there were no similar rules prohibiting marriage between people who cannot or choose not to have children. Defense attorney Charles J. Cooper could only reply that "the marital relation is fundamental to the existence and survival of the race" and that "without the marital relationship, society would come to an end."
*
Judge Walker seemed equally skeptical of Mr. Cooper's second line of argument, that marriage serves a beneficial social purpose and that extending it to same-sex couples would weaken its importance. "Do people get married to benefit the community?" he asked. "When one enters into a marriage, do you say, 'Oh boy, I'm going to benefit society'?" The judge then pressed Mr. Cooper for hard evidence that allowing gays to marry would hurt traditional heterosexual marriages.
*
[T]he strength of the plaintiffs' arguments is plainly in line with the growing acceptance of gay marriage, which is already legal in five states and the District of Columbia. But what was more striking was how empty the case was in support of the prohibition. Robbed of religious arguments, opponents were forced into positions that were ridiculous when taken to their logical conclusion. If marriage is for procreation, why do we let the elderly marry? Why not let lesbians marry, since they can procreate just as easily as heterosexual couples in which the man is infertile?
*
The claims that a ban on same-sex marriage is somehow for the benefit of society are just window dressing on deep-seated — and unconstitutional — prejudice. The time has come to recognize these unions as just as committed as their heterosexual counterparts to the purposes marriage was invented to serve and as equally beneficial to society.
The main argument by lawyers defending the law — that the primary purpose of marriage is reproduction and child-rearing — faced tough questioning by Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who repeatedly asked why there were no similar rules prohibiting marriage between people who cannot or choose not to have children. Defense attorney Charles J. Cooper could only reply that "the marital relation is fundamental to the existence and survival of the race" and that "without the marital relationship, society would come to an end."
*
Judge Walker seemed equally skeptical of Mr. Cooper's second line of argument, that marriage serves a beneficial social purpose and that extending it to same-sex couples would weaken its importance. "Do people get married to benefit the community?" he asked. "When one enters into a marriage, do you say, 'Oh boy, I'm going to benefit society'?" The judge then pressed Mr. Cooper for hard evidence that allowing gays to marry would hurt traditional heterosexual marriages.
*
[T]he strength of the plaintiffs' arguments is plainly in line with the growing acceptance of gay marriage, which is already legal in five states and the District of Columbia. But what was more striking was how empty the case was in support of the prohibition. Robbed of religious arguments, opponents were forced into positions that were ridiculous when taken to their logical conclusion. If marriage is for procreation, why do we let the elderly marry? Why not let lesbians marry, since they can procreate just as easily as heterosexual couples in which the man is infertile?
*
The claims that a ban on same-sex marriage is somehow for the benefit of society are just window dressing on deep-seated — and unconstitutional — prejudice. The time has come to recognize these unions as just as committed as their heterosexual counterparts to the purposes marriage was invented to serve and as equally beneficial to society.
No comments:
Post a Comment