Ooh, a New Anti-Marriage Equality Argument

Josh Charles, who will soon be attending Regent University Law School, promises in this Worldnetdaily column to deliver “the argument against gay marriage you’ve never heard of.” Okay, my interest is piqued. Spoiler alert: It’s not new and it’s really dumb. And here it is:

The contention that not allowing gay “marriage” amounts to treating homosexuals like second-class citizens is an entirely fallacious notion. All individuals are equal (i.e. treated the same) before the law, but not all ASSOCIATIONS (groups of individuals) are treated the same. There are for-profit and nonprofit corporations, churches and PACs, NGOs and foundations, etc. They are all groups of individuals who have freely associated with one another for particular purposes, and they are all treated differently by the government.

A man and a woman are one association, a man/man or woman/woman is another. They are fundamentally different primarily because of the unique ability of a man and a woman to create new life, and thus continue the human race. A homosexual couple can never do that. That is not hateful, it is the truth.

How incredibly clever. I have no doubt he would get an A at Regent on a paper that made this argument. But guess what? It isn’t the truth. Gay people in this country have lots and lots of children, around a million of them last I looked at the numbers. And lots and lots of straight couples also can’t have children, including the elderly and the infertile. So why isn’t he demanding that we treat one “association” — couples that are fertile — different from another “association” — couples that are infertile? Oh right, because this is a pretext, not a serious argument. It’s what he has to say because he can’t offer his real argument, which is that he’s against it because he thinks it’s icky and makes the baby Jesus cry.

All men, including homosexual men, have the exact same right to marry a woman, and vice versa. Again, NO ONE is being discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation.

Funny, that’s the exact same argument that was made to defend bans on interracial marriage, that no one was being discriminated against because white people and black people were both free to marry someone of the same race and not free to marry someone of another race. Didn’t work then, doesn’t work now.

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Trebuchet

    Didn’t work then, doesn’t work now.

    I’d say it worked just fine for about 300 years.

  • marcus

    ” All men, including homosexual men, have the exact same right to marry a woman, and vice versa.

    So a woman has the right to marry all men, including homosexual men?

    She’s going to be busy..

    (Vice versa….how the fuck does it work?)

  • sugarfrosted

    All men, including homosexual men, have the exact same right to marry a woman, and vice versa. Again, NO ONE is being discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation.

    By the same line of thought, gay marriage gives straight people more rights. The right to marry the same gender. Granted this doesn’t effect them, because they don’t want to marry the same gender, just like how gays don’t want to marry the opposite gender. So if straight marriage were banned and only gay marriage were legal would they use the same argument?

  • Chiroptera

    All individuals are equal (i.e. treated the same) before the law, but not all ASSOCIATIONS (groups of individuals) are treated the same. There are for-profit and nonprofit corporations, churches and PACs, NGOs and foundations, etc. They are all groups of individuals who have freely associated with one another for particular purposes, and they are all treated differently by the government.

    lol wut?

    Yeah, there are different types of associations. But the government isn’t allowed to arbitrarily decide on which people are to be prevented from forming which voluntary associations. Some couples may voluntarily decide to become legally married, some couples may decide to live together in the same domicile without legally marrying, and, yes, the state can treat each of those associations differently. But the state cannot decide who gets to live together without marriage nor who gets to legally marry.

    Jeez, I can’t even really see this clown’s point. Are you sure he isn’t planning on attending Liberty Remedial Middle School?

  • zenlike

    Strange. I thought marriage was a Holy Institution, Ordaining by God Himself as the Cornerstone of our Civilisation.

    Now it’s just an association.

    So wait, if it’s just a legal construct in the form of a simple association, then we can just change the definition right? Right?

  • http://www.gregory-gadow.net Gregory in Seattle

    Mr. Charles would have supported Washington’s Initiative 957, I assume.

    Regarding interracial marriage, the Commonwealth of Virginia made a similar argument in the Loving v. Virginia case: that since the anti-miscegenation law applied to whites and blacks equally, the law could not possibly be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The US Supreme Court smacked them down hard. I can only hope that when marriage equality once again comes before the Court, the ruling will resemble Loving.

  • http://www.gregory-gadow.net Gregory in Seattle

    @Chiroptera #4 – “Jeez, I can’t even really see this clown’s point. Are you sure he isn’t planning on attending Liberty Remedial Middle School?”

    That’s exactly what Ed said, Regent University Law School.

  • Nentuaby

    Trebuchet:

    Not really, no; in fact, it worked for a very brief period of time. Interracial marriage was prevented for about 300 years “Because Jesus, and White Purity.” Once the debate reached the point where people were offering the silly “same right to marry their own race” pretext, that age was already all but over. Arguments of that form are inherantly last ditch, because they only come up once it’s no longer acceptable to JQ Public to deny a group their rights.

  • cactuswren

    sugarfrosted @3: Really the argument boils down to “Rights I want are equal rights. Rights I don’t particularly care about are ‘special rights’.”

  • colnago80

    Not surprising that this dolt is attending Regent “Law School”. He probably couldn’t get into a respectable law school.

  • Carlos Cabanita

    I don’t even live in the USA, but I can offer a perfect retreat argument for the religious right to avoid losing face and shut the fuck up gracefully. They can say:

    “The US government can marry whomever they want, but in our churches we only recognize the one man one woman modality. We only bless those”.

    Ok, so everybody lives happily ever after. They can fade into oblivion without notice.

  • cptdoom

    So when the homosexual movement claims “equality” as its mantle, it does so in a completely illogical and untenable way. All homosexual individuals are treated the exact same way under the law as heterosexual individuals. So what this movement wants is not an equality of individuals (this already exists), but an equality of associations.

    Even if one were to accept his position that sexual orientation is not the basis for unequal treatment (which I find ludicrous), it is still discrimination based on gender. All men are prevented from forming a new legal family with another adult, unrelated male, just as all women are prevented from forming a new legal family with another women. And intersex people, who cannot be easily defined as either male or female, are apparently up the proverbial creek sans paddle.

    Now when marriage had defined gender roles in the law – the man was the provider, the woman his legal responsibility, the argument for opposite-gender marriages only was actually stronger. Now that marriage has been redefined to be the partnership of legal equals (damn those feminists, right Charles?), there is no basis for the gender limitations favored by Charles and his religious fellow travelers.

  • http://polrant@blogspot.com democommie

    “Josh Charles, who will soon be attending Regent University Law School,”

    Why? He’s already got the legal chops of Matt Staver, Orly Taitz and Larry Klayman; all rolled into one, tight, brown turd.

  • dingojack

    I thought “vice versa” was what you were arguing against in the first place, Josh.

    Dingo

  • dingojack

    SLC – “Not surprising that this dolt is attending Regent “Law School”. He probably couldn’t get into a respectable real law school.”

    FIFY

    Dingo

  • Scientismist

    They are fundamentally different primarily because of the unique ability of a man and a woman to create new life, and thus continue the human race.

    Even Justice Scalia recognized over 10 years ago in his dissent in Lawrence vs. Texas that this argument wouldn’t fly:

    If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is “no legitimate state interest” … [then] what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising “[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution”? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry.

  • dingojack

    And what of those of neither gender? Who can they marry, pray tell Josh?

    DIngo

  • cactuswren

    Carlos @11: It’s too late for that, I’m afraid. They’ve already painted themselves into a corner by claiming that the Guvvamint will force churches to marry same-sex couples.

  • onejazzone

    Nathan Poe, Esq. I presume?

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    Carlos Cabanita “I don’t even live in the USA, but I can offer a perfect retreat argument for the religious right to avoid losing face and shut the fuck up gracefully. They can say:

    ‘The US government can marry whomever they want, but in our churches we only recognize the one man one woman modality. We only bless those’.

    Ok, so everybody lives happily ever after. They can fade into oblivion without notice.”

    How can they live happily ever after they can’t prevent others from living happily ever after?

  • Michael Heath

    This old argument by the bigot:

    All men, including homosexual men, have the exact same right to marry a woman, and vice versa. Again, NO ONE is being discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation.

    Ed responds:

    Funny, that’s the exact same argument that was made to defend bans on interracial marriage, that no one was being discriminated against because white people and black people were both free to marry someone of the same race and not free to marry someone of another race. Didn’t work then, doesn’t work now.

    Yes, but why doesn’t it work? This is an important point far too many liberals get wrong.

    The bigot’s insinuation is wrong because it either assumes government grants us rights or falsely assumes the courts distinguish what is and what is not a right, where they then rely on holy dogma to determine such. Neither is true. In fact the whole effort to discover the existence or non-existence of rights is fatally flawed.

    Instead the courts determine whether a right must be protected by the government or not. The courts don’t conjure up a right* or if it’s competent, doesn’t seek its direction from holy dogma. From this perspective the courts have long conceded that marriage is a fundamental right, i.e, a right that the government is obligated to protect.

    IIRC Olson and Bois discovered eleven SCOTUS cases noting that marriage is a fundamental [individual] right. And then in this controversy we have the equal protection clause also obligating the federal government to limit state powers to protect our marriage rights equally.

    *Some might argue, contra my assertion above, that Justice Scalia and the majority in Heller conjured up a right to own and bear arms. But they didn’t since that right certainly exists given that our rights are without limit and inalienable (the protection of our rights is certainly limited). Instead the Hellermajority [falsely] concluded that the 2nd Amendment numerated a right to own and bear arms and therefore, this right prevented the government from the prohibition of gun rights. That, even if such prohibitions were the result of a compelling state interest; protecting the [far superior] un-numerated security rights of others.

    The 2nd clearly doesn’t protect a right own and bear arms, from any historical or logical standard, but that’s precedent now. But claiming it did created a false comparison between a supposedly numerated right and an un-enumerated right where the “numerated right” one out.

    FWIW, I don’t think the government has delegated powers to prohibit gun rights, regardless of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. However I also think that security rights of individuals far outweighs gun rights in most public venues.

  • http://georgeworroll.wordpress.com gworroll

    So, different sorts of associations can be treated differently. Ok, I’m fine with this.

    You still need a justification before you actually do that, though.

  • Jen

    We could always go the “Only same sex relationships are allowed”, getting rid of opposite sex relationships completely. This would get rid of almost all abortions (except for medical reasons), and all unwanted pregnancies, because pregnancies would have to be planned. I can be ridiculous too!

  • marcus

    Scientismist @ 16 I hope to see Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence quoted to support marriage equality as well as his dissent in Windsor.

    Schadenfreude too geude!

  • thomwatson

    As always, the commenters at WND provide the real entertainment. Like this one which, given the user’s other comments, doesn’t seem to be a Poe:

    NEWS FLASH:

    God is now, always

    has been, and for eternity always will be a monogamous, heterosexual male. And

    His moral standards are the same, and are non-negotiable. Deal with it! He will

    never lower His standards, but He is always ready to empower you to raise

    yours.

  • thomwatson

    His conflation of World Vision and Mozilla is also rather sloppy and highlights his double-standard. Mozilla is to be excoriated for allegedly “caving” to public pressure (setting aside any arguments that the pressures were largely internal, and that no LGBT organization called for Eich’s outster), while he praises WorldVision for specifically and openly reversing because of public pressure.

  • smrnda

    If gay people can currently marry opposite sex people right now, meaning they have the same rights as heterosexuals, then if gay marriage is allowed, everyone will still have the same rights as straight people will then be able to marry same sex partners. By his logic, shouldn’t we expand rights for all rather than restrict them? I mean, shouldn’t heterosexuals be overjoyed with this new increase in their rights?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=523300770 stuartsmith

    “All men, including homosexual men, have the exact same right to marry a woman”

    Yes, but women don’t have that right. Giving a right to men, and not to women, is discrimination.

  • Pieter B, FCD

    marcus @#2

    So a woman has the right to marry all men, including homosexual men?

    My favorite sign from an equality rally is “If Liza Minelli can marry TWO gay men, why can’t I marry ONE?”