Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

For the Record, I Believe Men Should Be Able to Marry Women. Now Can We Move On?

Rob Tisinai

May 31st, 2012

Yesterday I slammed a Minnesota for Marriage video. It promised to give us a rational basis for banning same-sex marriage, but in fact it just made a cause for allowing the bio-parents of a child to marry. Somehow, M4M just took for granted that this means same-sex couples shouldn’t have marriage rights without bother to make a rational case for this leap.

Apparently that’s a common failing.

When the 1st Circuit Court struck down DOMA today, it addressed some of the arguments Congress had used to justify the law. Here’s what it says about House of Representatives stated goal of “defending and nurturing the institution of traditional, heterosexual marriage.”

Although the House Report is filled with encomia to heterosexual marriage, DOMA does not increase benefits to opposite-sex couples–whose marriages may in any event be childless, unstable or both–or explain how denying benefits to same-sex couples will reinforce heterosexual marriage.  Certainly, the denial will not affect the gender choices of those seeking marriage.  This is not merely a matter of poor fit of remedy to perceived problem…but a lack of any demonstrated connection between DOMA’s treatment of same-sex couples and its asserted goal of strengthening the bonds and benefits to society of heterosexual marriage.

Exactly. No one is working to eliminate opposite-sex marriage, and legalizing same-sex marriage won’t keep one mother from marrying the father of her child. Our opponents can fill the air with praise for hetero-coupling until there’s no air left to fill. But that still won’t explain why I shouldn’t be allowed to marry my partner Will.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0

Ian
June 1st, 2012 | LINK

Because you getting benefits = increase burden on the government = burden on the heterosexual couples?

And because same sex couples can’t procreate so to them marriage equality would be like throwing money into the ocean?

Donny D.
June 1st, 2012 | LINK

Many people with anti-gay feelings believe deep down it’s an “us or them” battle, where if one side gains rights the other loses them. Many of them actually seem to believe that if same sex marriage becomes legal and accepted, then heterosexual marriage will be eliminated, existing heterosexual marriages will be abolished somehow and heterosexuals won’t be able to marry.

I didn’t say anti-gay people but people with anti-gay feelings because there are a large number of straight people who don’t consider themselves to be homophobic and who criticize those they see as homophobic but who themselves have a significant amount of anti-gay prejudice that they are often unaware of. I think we’re fooling ourselves if we don’t acknowledge that many of those who say they are for us when polled are only sort of for us. It was that group of people that NOM and the rest of the pro-Prop 8 coalition used to get just enough additional votes to push Prop 8 over the top by a narrow margin.

Hunter
June 1st, 2012 | LINK

I have yet to see a rational case for banning same-sex marriage, so it’s no surprise that the video couldn’t come up with one. And it’s been fairly obvious for a long time that people don’t need a license to make babies.

There probably is a certain amount of “us/them” thinking going on, as well as a bizarre zero sum idea of civil rights, but as I recall, the California and Maine campaigns didn’t really focus on marriage — they were all about “Save the children!” Not a lot of rationality going on there at all.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.