Monday, August 9, 2010

Another Stupid Argument Against Gay Marriage

I read (but now cannot find for linking purposes) some of the transcripts of the Proposition 8 trial a few months ago. What struck me, and I think I mentioned this here before, is how empty and lame the arguments were against gay marriage. I'm surprised those who are unhappy with the outcome of that trial aren't suggesting that their lawyer took a bribe and threw the match. A better case could have been made...

...but not a much better one because for the most part, the case against same-sex Weddings has always been a pretty flimsy one. I've read and heard a lot of them and they always seems to come down to...

• ...a couple of passages in The Bible condemn homosexuality. (Yeah, well maybe they do...but The Bible is full of passages which condemn things that are legal, including some routinely practiced by those who swear allegiance to the book. Anyone for shrimp cocktail? We don't pass laws in this country because The Bible says something is wrong. It's perfectly legal, for example, to not believe in God, to have other gods before Him, etc.)
• ...children are better off being raised by a mixed couple. (That's arguable but even if it's true, no one seems to be suggesting we ban all those divorces which leave kids in the custody of single parents. It's also an argument against gay adoption, not gay marriage.)
• ...and gay sex is unnatural and yucchy. (Again, even if true, no basis for law. I might get behind this one if we all agree to ban some things I think are unnatural and yucchy, like getting tattoos, eating cole slaw and watching Glenn Beck. I could make a long list of legal things that repulse me more than the notion that two people who love each other have made a committment to spend the rest of their lives together. Latent homophobia, as practiced by some who oppose gay marriage, is one of them.)

The main reason Gay Marriage is gaining increasing acceptance is that more and more, people are coming to realize that the case against it is pretty hollow. The one argued before Judge Walker sure was, especially when the attorney for Proposition 8 veered inexplicably into talking about the value of procreation to society. Apparently, no one told him that regardless of how laws are written, procreation is pretty much off the menu for gay couples and therefore irrelevant. No wonder he lost.

Recently in the New York Times, Conservative columnist Ross Douthat largely abandoned the old arguments from his side as baseless. He then comes up with an artfully-worded new one that is summarized in this paragraph...

The point of this ideal is not that other relationships have no value, or that only nuclear families can rear children successfully. Rather, it's that lifelong heterosexual monogamy at its best can offer something distinctive and remarkable — a microcosm of civilization, and an organic connection between human generations — that makes it worthy of distinctive recognition and support.

I could maybe buy a small part of that if Douthat acknowledged that an amazing percentage of the leaders against gay marriage are not exactly poster boys for heterosexual monogamy. But for the most part, it's double talk. We don't make laws in this country that enforce "lifelong heterosexual monogamy." Divorce is legal...and pretty common. Homosexuality is legal. Cheating on your spouse is legal...and pretty common. We don't even require that married couples have kids at all, which I guess is that "organic connection" he's talking about.

And as I read it, he's managed to miss...or maybe just not want to see the core of Judge Walker's decision. Douthat wants the legal system to endorse his view that Hetero Marriage is somehow superior to gay marriage. Judge Walker's decision was not that it is or it isn't; just that it isn't the business of the state to make such a judgment. That oughta be the Conservative position, telling the government to keep its judgmental opinions to itself...but anything relating to sex seems to make The Nanny State acceptable to some and political considerations impact others. As I wrote in a Tweet the other day, it's very confusing: My governor, who's a Republican, is in favor of gay marriage. My president, who's a Democrat, is not.

Or maybe it's not so confusing. Obama doesn't need the added grief he must think he'd get from an outright endorsement of it, and Arnold is going back to making movies and would probably like there be someone on the crew who'll style his hair.

• Posted at 11:08 PM · LINK

Recommended Reading

A lot of you remember Sheila Kuehl from her acting career. Under the name Sheila James, she played Zelda Gilroy on the old sitcom, The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis. She later got into politics and served in the California State Assembly and California State Senate until term limits ended that. She's currently doing consulting work and writing essays like this one in which she gives her view of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. It's not a flattering view and is quite at odds with the one being structured in the press.

• Posted at 8:55 AM · LINK

Go Read It!

Kliph Nesteroff has a darn good interview up with cartoonist Drew Friedman. It's mostly about a favored topic: Old Jewish Comedians.

• Posted at 12:50 AM · LINK

Tdoay's Video Link

Our London correspondent Shelly Goldstein highly recommends the new West End production of Sweet Charity. Here's a little sample...and by the way, the video is not flawed. British actors really do sing with their mouths out of sync, especially when portraying hippies...

• Posted at 12:20 AM · LINK