Missing the point

[pegkerr]

The (lack of) logic some people resort to in order to argue against gay marriage just amazes me sometimes. Their blindness to the obvious just boggles me. Here's a typical example that appeared in today's Star Tribune. In it, a libertarian absolutely ties himself into knots to argue against gay marriage. One thing that particularly struck me was this:

One could argue that gay couples want the same rights/responsibilities implied by the marriage laws. That is, they want to be governed by the same marriage laws.

This could easily be accommodated via civil union legislation.

However, gay marriage activists have rejected this idea. This rejection is a stumbling block to the libertarian argument for gay marriage. Under the civil union proposal, no right would be blocked to homosexual couples, yet this is not good enough.

So why do gay activists want marriage for homosexuals? The answer appears to be social validation.

Well, social validation is all very well, sure. But is this person so ignorant that he is really unaware of the real differences between civil unions and marriage? Marriage confers a whole host of rights, particularly on the federal level, that does not exist for any civil union as that term is understood in the United States today, rights concerning Social Security, the right to file federal income tax jointly, inheritance, etc. He blithely asserts that these rights could "easily be accommodated" by civil unions. If so, why aren't they now? And why the hell should gay people be told to be satisfied with a second-tier solution, as if their relationships aren't as real as those of heterosexual folk?

It reminds me of the stupidity of people who inquire plaintively why on earth would gays want to serve in the military anyway?

Uh, hello? Aside from the educational, employment and travel benefits, maybe it's because they love their country and want to participate in serving it, and it should be their right as citizens to do so?

I remember once helping elisem with a project to catalogue a library full of books at the University Club (or was it the University Women's Club??? Can't remember.) And one of our discoveries was that someone had donated a very large collection of anti-suffragette writings to that library, full of explanations of why it was immoral, unethical, stupid and ridiculous to give women the right to vote. The arguments in those books were absolutely fascinating in their tortured logic and willful blindness to the obvious: that women had every interest in voting, and that it was the right thing to do.

I think that about fifty years the arguments against gay marriage will seem as silly to us as those anti-suffrage arguments seem to us now.

The irksome thing is, how long will it take people to finally accept what is right and just? And how many families with GLBT citizens will be hurt in the meantime?

Yeah, and I did call my senators on the vote this week. Glad that horrible idea has been shut down for the time being. I'm sure we'll see that sucker again, however.