Okay, try to follow along if you can: Gays and lesbians shouldn’t be allowed to marry the person they love because most Americans are in favor of that, and also most Americans aren’t. In addition, marriage equality is bad for kids, according to a study had nothing to do with marriage. Also, religion. Tradition. And straight people don’t actually want to be married, so if gay people can marry then straight people will lose interest in each other. These are just some of the stupefying arguments presented to the US Supreme Court ahead of oral argument next week.
Maybe the strangest brief came from a group called “Same Sex Attracted Men and their Wives.” These are gay guys who married straight women, who seem to think that the case will result in a “mandate requiring same-sex marriage.” It won’t, don’t worry, nobody’s going to be required to have a same-sex wedding. The brief also argues that letting gay people marry each other suggests that there’s something wrong with gay people marrying straight people.
Whether it suggests that or not, the argument still doesn’t make sense. LGBTs should be prevented from marrying the person they love because it’s better to marry someone they don’t love? The logic here just doesn’t work. Which is probably why at least one of the couples cited in the brief, a gay man married to a straight woman, has since said that they wish they hadn’t been included.
Another brief claims that children of LGBTs do worse when their parents get married. But it cites a study from 1995, which is ten years before marriage equality was legal anywhere. Another says that gays are so politically powerful that they shouldn’t be allowed to marry because … well, that’s never explained. And it contradict’s NOM’s brief claiming that gays don’t actually have any public support.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Then there’s a brief signed by the “Leaders of the 2012 Republican National Convention Committee on the Platform.” That’s Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, former Republican National Committee Vice-Chairman James Bopp Jr, and Carolyn McLarty, the chair of the RNC’s Committee on Resolution and a retired veterinarian. Their argument: men are so promiscuous and women are so emotional that they need to marry each other to control those impulses.
The brief also argues that only straight families, and their children, can resist tyrants and totalitarian regimes. No explanation of how that works. It also claims that the average gay relationship only lasts a year and a half. Again, this was paid for and signed by Republican party leaders and at least one member of Congress.
It’s probably a good thing that the briefs against marriage equality are so convoluted. It’s certainly not doing any favors to the states trying to preserve their marriage bans. Oral argument will be the morning of April 28, that’s next Tuesday. So keep an eye out for that, and hopefully this is the last time we’ll have to roll our eyes at arguments like these.
Leon Wilborn
I almost got a headache trying to comprehend all of that…
Paul Limandri
Not even trying to wrap my head around anything republican…if they’re for it, I’m against it…that is all!
polarisfashion
The conservatives say some of the goofiest stuff you’ll ever hear. If marriage equality is upheld by the Supreme Court, I can’t wait to hear Pat Robertson’s take on it. Seriously someone needs to add a laugh track to these idiots!
Jesse Erickson
wow. its almost like they WANT to fail
Bruce Dillon
Our In$aniTEAliban republiKKKlan$ $UX The life & Love Out of all of US!
(*;*()
MacAdvisor
“Another says that gays are so politically powerful that they shouldn’t be allowed to marry because … well, that’s never explained.”
The argument goes to the level of scrutiny same-sex marriage bans should be subjected to. In the famous US v. Carolene Products Company, 304 U.S. 144 (1938) we find the famous Footnote 4. Supreme Court Justice Stone, the author of the opinion with the famous footnote wrote that a more exacting standard of judicial review would be warranted for legislation aimed at discrete and insular minorities which lacked the normal protections of the political process. Such instances would be one exception to the presumption of constitutionality, justifying a heightened standard of judicial review. Most Constitutional scholars view gays as a “discrete and insular minorities which lacked the normal protections of the political process.” That is, there are so few of us compared to the majority that we are likely targets for abuse. However, *IF* we are “politically powerful,” then we don’t fall into the exception and the laws should receive rational basis scrutiny. That lower standard is much, much easier to make, though courts have found bans unconstitutional even under that loose standard.
Thus, showing us to be politically powerful is a real argument. We should be able to win the right to marriage through the political process.
Andrew Mitchell-Namdar
Is there a good one?
gaym50ish
That myth about the average gay relationship lasting only 1.5 years simply won’t die.
It’s based on the so-called Dutch Study, which was a long-term study of AIDS transmission, not of gay relationships. But anti-gay groups seized on certain results to prove that gays don’t have any long-term relationships. The problem with their conclusions is that monogamous couples were excluded from the study because they were not likely to spread HIV. Also excluded was anyone over the age of 30. And anyone who was HIV-negative was excluded unless he was in a relationship with someone who was HIV-positive.
So, what would you expect to learn about gay relationships from a study that excluded anyone who was monogamous, had not acquired HIV or was over 30?
There have been other studies, of course, but they tend to compare straight “marriages” with gay “relationships.” In other words, they do not account for the many relationships a straight guy may have had before marriage. He may have had hundreds of dates and some steady girlfriends before marrying, but his marriage is the only relationship considered in this comparison. The gay guy may go through the same process before finding a life mate, but the break-up of every romance that may be little more than a steady date is cited as evidence that gay relationships don’t last.
silveroracle
I think some people need to have their coffee before they blurt out all the rubbish that I’ve read there.
silveroracle
By the way, I’m not referring to the remarks on this thread. I’m referring to the actual statements of the top.
Saint Law
The Religious Right are doomed to impotently shrieking in the political wilderness forever and they know it.