I’ve seen some truly loony arguments against marriage equality over the last few years, but the one offered by some guy named Robert Oscar Lopez at the badly misnamed American Thinker may take the cake. Same-sex marriage is wrong, he says, because it violates the 13th Amendment. That’s the one against slavery.
Is anyone interested in defending children’s rights to a father and a mother? Sadly, both left and right in the United States lag far behind the United Nations, even though our own Constitution has a firm basis in the Thirteenth Amendment to ban many of the parenting practices encouraged by same-sex marriage. The Declaration of the Rights of the Child of 1959, Article 7, states that wherever possible, children must be raised by their father and mother — this is because of the long, ugly history of infants being bought and sold, going back to the slavery era and stretching into antiquity. The International Convention of the Rights of the Child of 1989, Article 7, reinforces this right.
The Thirteenth Amendment of the United States states that “neither slavery nor involuntary servitude” is to be permitted in the U.S. or its territories. Stop and think what this means. Minus involuntary servitude, “slavery” amounts historically to the buying, selling, and ownership of human life, including insemination, surrogacy, and commercial adoption — all practices that made American slavery possible after Thomas Jefferson banned the Atlantic slave trade in 1807.
In no way is same-sex marriage an advancement. It is rather a backward slide into long-discredited and terrifying abuses of procreation, resulting in the dehumanization of children. Perhaps it might have been less alarming, had not gay parenting been so thoroughly intertwined — at the behest of the proponents of same-sex marriage, mind you — with the fight for full “marriage equality.” Because of the way the debate has played out in the United States, full marriage equality means that same-sex couples are entitled to children that they’ve acquired, inevitably, through financial exchange, and states have no way of prioritizing the natural pathway of human beings from conception into the custody of their fathers and mothers. The latter pathway is the only way to produce new generations without resurrecting the ills of earlier centuries, when slavery was globally rampant and infants were often pirated or sold as chattel.
And if he really believed all this slavery bullshit, he’d recognize that it applies equally to straight couples who adopt a child. Straight couples, and straight individuals, pay money to adoption agencies too. Why isn’t that slavery? Why doesn’t that dehumanize children? And maybe he should try having a conversation with someone who was adopted, whether by a straight or gay person, and tell them that they’re a slave because their parents spent money in the process of adopting them. He might be just a bit surprised by their reaction.
Same-sex marriage means that there will be separate domestic spaces reserved for all-female parenting arrangements, all-male parenting arrangements, and mixed-gender parenting arrangements.
Actually, there already are such spaces. There is no requirement that one be married to raise children, no matter what the sexual orientation of the parents. Hundreds of thousands of children are being raised by gay parents, some of them biological and some adopted, no matter what we do with gay marriage. Allowing their parents to get married provides more protection for those children. If Lopez actually gave a damn about them, he’d be all for this. But he doesn’t. This is just a pretext to rant about the evils of gay people.
By the way, this guy is a professor of English at Cal State University Northridge.