Anti-Gay Nup Site Goes For Youth, But Keeps Old Tactics


3. Panic! Like their predecessors, iProtect relies largely on scare tactics to move voters, like this:

The legal and civil definition of marriage as between a man and a woman has gone unchallenged for centuries, providing a foundation for the growth of Western civilization. That means your way of life.

Yes, it’s true – if gays get married, up will be down, black will be white and the world will simply implode! We kid, of course, but these activists sure as shit mean business.

Their argument rests on the “fact” that “the definition of marriage as it has been defined since the beginning of civilization.” Gee whiz! These people must be older than dirt if they can positively assert such a statement, which is not only unverifiable, but also wrong. Marriage wasn’t meant to sustain civilization, as our friend and author Susan Squire explained, but to insure a woman’s obedience and maintain a pure familial lineage. Women were meant to be loyal to their husbands, most of whom slept with available women on the side. That is not “civilization,” but repression.

Later, as the Church gained more power over European society, marriage became even more explicitly about controlling sex. It wasn’t until Martin Luther and his Reformation that the “sacred” institution found itself mired in love – and everyone, including gay people, can feel love. And so everyone should be able to share in the pinnacle of said emotion. To look down on one type of relationship simply because it isn’t “traditional” betrays a distressful lack of empathy.

What’s more – sorry, we’re really revved up on this one – Yale historian John Boswell once wrote a book called Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe. And guess what he has to say?

Very few premodern or nonindustrialized contemporary cultures would agree with the contention – uncontroversial in the West – that “the purpose of a man is to love a woman, and the purpose of a man is to love a man.” Most human beings in most times and places would find this a very meager measure of human value.

Snap!

4. Intentional Misreadings: David and Tonia Parker have become small-time celebrities in the world of social conservatism. The Massachusetts-based couple, along with some of their peers, filed a lawsuit against the Lexington School District after a teacher read their child King & King, about a royal who prefers princes to princesses. The Parkers claimed the school was violating their religious beliefs.

Judge Mark L. Wolf ended up tossing the case, saying that schools are not required to work around family’s individual religions and, in fact, are “entitled to teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens.” That is, the 21st century child should be taught realistic lessons, like the fact that some people are gay. Those lessons could then help build more cohesive societies.

Right-wing leaders balked, as they do, and insist Wolf’s simply pushing the gay agenda. iProtect marriage offers this short, ill-fitted summary of the case: “Fact: On February 23, 2007, the judge in the Massachusetts case ordered the teaching of the homosexual lifestyle to children in public schools.” Had these foolish fools read the ruling, they would see that Wolf did not “order” to book be taught, but simply said schools can make the decision themselves.


5. Stonewalling This here Q&A provides a perfect example of social conservative stonewalling. Note that rather than answering the “why not?” aspect of the inquiry, iProtect simply defers to civil unions. That is, quite simply, because there are no logical, viable or even tasteful answers about why gay people should marry. None.

Here’s one reason why they should be able to marry: about $683.6 million in direct spending garnered after three-years of gay marriage, not to mention the estimated 2,100 new jobs created if California’s sticks with same-sex nuptials. Then there are the stable households erected for children in need of homes; the fact that restricting marriage rights only reinforces heterosexist norms and deprives people of building a life with the person they love and enjoying the same rights as other Americans.

It’s this kind of empty rebuttal that makes right-wing movements like iProtect so intellectually impotent. If only such thinking would go the way of the do-do.