The First of Many Posts to Come about Same-Sex Marriage

I was spending a relaxing afternoon listening to right-wing lunatics spouting off, when I came across this gem.  Even though it’s over 3 years old, it’s topical in that it frames the conservative argument against gay marriage perfectly.

The block-quoted text is linked to the audio clip of ‘Dr.’ James Dobson spouting his vile nonsense.

“Why will gay marriage set the table for polygamy? Because there is no place to stop once that Rubicon has been crossed.

That wacky old ‘Doctor’!  He got to the slippery slope argument right away.  No fartin’ around from this guy!  He went straight (Get it?  Straight?) to the argument that isn’t.

I got all kinds of grief when I argued that extending voting rights to black men would result in dogs, donkeys, and Peanut Buster Parfaits voting.  I never would have imagined that women would someday vote, but now we’ve even gone that far!  What’s next?

Now that the voting Rubicon has been crossed, I foresee a time when we could have a President-elect who isn’t even completely white!  Imagine the horror!

Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on a foundation of tradition, legal precedent, theology and the overwhelming support of the people.

Historically, wives were property, cousins married, men married dozens of often underage women (That still happens a lot in Utard.), Greek men were married and pederasts, the consummation of marriage used to be public, etc.

Traditions evolve.  Can you imagine that?  Something evolving?  Surely, every rock, tree, platypus, and tradition was intelligently designed and put into place, as is, in 4004 BCE.

Legal precedents change; theology evolves, and the will of the people is in a constant state of flux.

Additionally, there is no more certain way to trample on the rights of minorities than to unleash the argument that a type of discrimination has ‘the overwhelming support of the people’.

After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals, however, it will be supported by nothing more substantial than the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of justices.

‘It’, in this case, meaning the definition of marriage, not the Stephen King book.  Does that even make sense, Dobber?  How does extending civil rights to homosexuals erode the support of your definition of marriage?  It would seem, then, that your definition of marriage is on some really, really shaky ground.

You mentioned that in your limited world-view, ‘the definition of marriage has rested on a foundation of tradition, legal precedent, theology, and the overwhelming support of the people.’  Now, by slightly altering one part of that foundation, the legal precedent, marriage ‘will be supported by nothing more substantial that the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of justices.’

Epic fail, Dobber.  Epic fail.

Historically, slavery rested on a foundation of tradition, legal precedent, theology, and the overwhelming support of the people.  That’s not evidence that slavery is a good thing.  It’s evidence that people make mistakes, huge, horrible, terrifying, devastating mistakes.  Those mistakes must be corrected.

The legal recognition of homosexual marriage is the correction of a legal precedent that’s prejudicial.

After they have reached that dubious decision, the family will consist of little more than someone’s interpretation of ‘rights.’

The family?  When did you scoot from gay marriage to redefining the family?  One’s family is one’s primary social unit.  Because it’s the primary social unit, family is often the people with whom we live.  The family consists of something much more nebulous than an interpretation of rights.  Family has always been dynamic in meaning, and difficult to define.

Would you like to Focus on the Family and try to give the word ‘family’ a legal definition which you can then ram through the wingnut court appointees with whom Dubya has provided you?  Oh, no, you wouldn’t do that.  You’re against judicial activism.  LOL!

Given that unstable legal climate, it is certain that some self-possessed judge, somewhere, will soon rule that three men or three women can marry. Or five men and two women. Or four and four.

Oh goody!  Math!  I’m starting to feel more at home now.  What is unstable about extending rights to a group that’s being discriminated against?  You realize, don’t you Dobber, that your arguments are the same ones used in arguments against civil rights for African-Americans, women, and disabled people?

I’m certainly not a judge, but I am more self-possessed than most, so let me make a ruling.

The perfect marriage is hereby defined as two men and two women, all completely bisexual.  Furthermore, none of them are jealous, possessive, conservative, pedophilic, or christian.  They love each other and their kids.  They are drug free and good neighbours.  They love puppies, kitties, and redwood trees.  They spend their Sunday mornings giving time to legitimate charities instead of going to church.  They donate money to environmental and human rights causes.  They have a wild 4-way sex life that I can think about and not feel guilty at all, but which you have to condemn…even though you can’t get it out of your mind.  You can’t, can you?  You have probably already put names and faces to the nameless, faceless fantasy I presented.  Shame on you ‘Dr.’ Dobson!

Seriously, Dobber, nobody’s asking for marriage between groups of people.  That’s a commune, and they’re perfectly legal.  Let’s just leave them alone.

Who will be able to deny them that right?

You seem to be a casual denier of rights, so you tell me who will be able to deny them that right?  The fact is that everything is regulated.  It has to be.  We have a right to free speech, but there are limitations.  We have a right to bear arms, but there are limitations.  The problem is, that marriage is being denied to a minority.  That’s blatant discrimination.  This prohibition against gay marriage is like denying free speech to bald men, and denying the right to bear arms to Chinese-Americans.  It’s ridiculous.

The guarantee is implied, we will be told, by the Constitution.

Is there an implied guarantee of justice in the Constitution?  No, it’s not implied.  It is explicit in the preamble.  I know, a lot of your Dobber-bots have never read that far into the Constitution.

Those who disagree will continue to be seen as hate-mongers and bigots. (Indeed, those charges are already being leveled against Christians who espouse biblical values!)

Those who fight tooth and nail to have discrimination written into the US and various State constitutions are hate-mongers and bigots, which helps to explain why they are seen as hate-mongers and bigots.

How about group marriage, or marriage between daddies and little girls?

We went through the group marriage thing already.  I suppose the daddies and little girls thing turns you on, but we already have prohibitions against fathers marrying daughters.  You may be in favor of it, however, as the offspring of such consanguineous couplings would be far more likely than the general population to listen to your radio show.

How about marriage between a man and his donkey?

A man and his donkey?  Sexy, but unlikely.  There will be some animal-themed marriages.  Bears, cubs, otters, pandas, polar bears, chickens, chicken hawks, and wolves will likely find themselves in various combinations within the bonds of holy matrimony.  But, only two at a time, please.

Anything allegedly linked to ‘civil rights’ will be doable, and the legal underpinnings for marriage will have been destroyed.”

Man, that’s some negative talk, buster.  The legal underpinnings for discriminatory laws regarding marriage should be destroyed.

Marriage is a governmental institution.  Because it is a governmental institution, it cannot be discriminatory.

Tags: bestiality, constitution, discrimination, Dobson, dog, donkey, Focus on the Family, gay marriage, Peanut Buster Parfait, Same-sex Marriage