There seems to be a competition going on between anti-gay bigots to see who can make the most ridiculous and hyperbolic analogy to what is going on with same-sex marriage. The deranged Linda Harvey’s entry into the contest: They’re stoning Christians!
The 1973 Roe v Wade high court will forever be stained with the blood of children on its collective hands.
The liberal majority in the 2014 Roberts court will now be labeled with the “C” word—for being cowards. These justices upended American civilization while standing on the sidelines.
Millions of voters in five states were assaulted in the public square, disenfranchised by this court’s decision to not overturn erroneous lower court rulings validating same sex “marriage.” Like Saul during the stoning of Stephen, they became bystanders, nodding their assent as terrible violence was committed.
Yeah, except there is no violence being committed. Other people that you don’t approve of are now allowed to get married. This does nothing whatsoever to you and has nothing to do with you. You aren’t being martyred, you’re just losing your ability to harm other people. It isn’t the same thing.
Keep dreaming. A shrinking group of people will continue howling in outrage and be increasingly marginalized and ignored, just like the racists who opposed civil rights in the 50s and 60s.
The good news is that this, like Roe, is sure to galvanize the conservative base on the issue of homosexuality like nothing has in decades.
But while we are mulling this over, we need to be honest. Our side could deploy better arguments, frankly. I respect those fighting the specific battle against recognition of same sex unions. Yet can’t we revisit the worth of more boldly proclaiming the whole truth, playing our two trump cards: the deviance of homosexual behavior and the lack of evidence for a “gay gene?”
We need a clear articulation of these points. State laws are being overturned based on a 14th amendment argument, which simply is irrelevant to marriage between people of the same sex. This argument depends on accepting homosexuality as innate, but there’s ample evidence this premise is not true. It’s immoral behavior not intrinsic to humans, and therefore not encompassed in the word “person” in the amendment language. A defense of this point in some fashion needs to be made by our legal advocates—if it’s not too late.
Wow. That’s what you call “better arguments”? Good luck with that.