The diversity peeps have got it made. If you say, "I think all people are basically the same and should be treated alike," they will respond, "No, we are different. We should honor differences!" If you say, "People are different," they will say, "No, people are all the same!" Their statements, whatever they might actually mean, are always delivered in haughty, self-righteous tones of moral superiority. They are better than we are, that is the fundamental point. And we suck because we don't believe in equality.
That complex attitude is richly displayed in Stephen Henderson's editorial Schuette should realize the battle to suppress gay rights is over (Detroit Free Press, March 25, 2014, page 9A.) There are two lies in the title. First, the issue is not over until the Michigan case or a similar case is ruled on by the U.S. Supreme Court. It might not be over even then. If the District Court ruling is ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court, many of us citizens will reasonably conclude that the courts have presumed radical powers not given to them by the Constitution. What happens then? Well, who knows.
The second lie is that there is a "battle to suppress gay rights." Homosexuals have the same rights to freedom of speech, religion, the press, the same freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, the same right to keep and bear arms, the same right to sign contracts and own property, the same general protection from violence as the rest of us. The cops don't say, "You're a queer, so we can check out your porno collection without a warrant." As far as marriages are concerned, homosexuals have always had the right to marry, as long as the two spouses were of opposite sex. In the old days, many did just that so they could pretend to be normal. These days there is much greater acceptance that some people are gay. "Coming out" isn't such a big deal. So gay people have the same right to get married that they always had. They just don't have any need to do so.
It should also be noted that heterosexual men are not allowed to marry each other. A few might actually wish to do so, for insurance benefits and as a convenient way of managing inheritance issues, etc. The law does not discriminate. Homo or hetero, a man may not marry another man.
I am perfectly happy to respect someone for who they are. In limited cases, I am willing to go along with someone's pretense that they are something they are not. I believe I met the plaintiffs six or seven years ago. They smiled and said they'd just gotten married. I smiled back and said congratulations, if I remember right. Not a huge issue for me, really.
I oppose and resent any attempts to codify such pretense into law. The entire "gay marriage" movement is merely a contemporary political affectation. The Michigan case was not based on any universal right to get married. The two women brought suit supposedly because, under the laws of Michigan, unmarried individuals are not allowed to jointly adopt a child. One woman has already adopted a child; the other woman has adopted two children. If one of them dies, the other would have to go back to court in order to re-adopt the surviving child or children. Big deal. Why did the women not ask the legislature to change the law? In some rare cases, adoption by two unmarried individuals might make sense. None of that transforms their relationship into a "marriage."
Henderson asks, "What in God's name is the point of fighting until the bitter end to preserve Michigan's ability to deny a class of citizens their equal rights?" He is using a form of bad reasoning known as "begging the question." It is presuming that the question answers itself. In a practical, legal sense, adult same-sex couples have a right to marry in some states, but not in Michigan. We are not denying anyone's rights. We are simply declaring that such a "right" does not exist. That is the immediate issue of the legal struggle.
That struggle also involves a much larger issue. Are we allowed to govern ourselves or are we ruled by Federal Judges and Professors of Social Science? If "equal protection of the law" means same-sex couples can get married, then it means nothing at all. It's just something a judge can pull out of his butt and wave around as a flimsy pretext for ruling however he wants. It means a judge can radically re-define an institution that has existed for thousands of years and then, with a poop-eating grin, say he was just following our Constitution. It means, basically, that the law does not protect us.
As I read the Henderson editorial I became angry. It was as if he were accusing me personally of "anti-gay bigotry," moral repugnance and "invidious discrimination," all motivated by "fear, hatred or religious disapproval". But as I grappled with the text, thinking about it seriously and writing about it, my sore-headedness dissipated. Henderson is a stupid, mean-spirited person. Why should I feel bad just because some other human is a total creep?
It's only when I feel totally beaten that I feel anything like hatred. I don't advocate "the politics of rage" at all. Rage is just icky. Not my thing. I prefer the politics of superiority. I am intellectually and morally superior to the freaks trying to impose the absurdity of same-sex "marriage" on American society. Superiority feels good.
Copyright © 2014
To link to this article, try copying and pasting:
<a href="http://m3peeps.org/04/tagm.htm">Thoughts About 'Gay Marriage'</a>
[Go to m3peeps.org main index page]