Tamara Scott’s Weird Arguments on Gay Marriage

Tamara Scott, a wacky far-right talk show host from Iowa who is also a member of the Republican National Committee, has some rather bizarre arguments to make about same sex marriage. Like she thinks that feminists should be opposed to it because it somehow undermines…well, something.

Guest Carolyn McClarty explained the points made by RNC members who signed the brief, and Scott mused that feminists should oppose marriage equality to remain consistent with their views on gender equality.

“By 2020, they want 50/50 in the statehouses and the U.S. House and Senate,” Scott said. “They want 50 percent women and 50 percent men, they want 50/50, they want equality.”

Scott said banning same-sex marriage ensured an equal number of men and women were married.

“So my laugh is, why wouldn’t you want equality in a marriage?” she continued. “Why aren’t those same women wanting that same argument at home? Because we know children do better when they’re raised by their biological parents.”

Can you make any sense of that at all? I can’t. It isn’t even wrong, it’s just incoherent.

Scott said she couldn’t even support civil unions because that would lend state support of “the act” that “God has not condoned” and violate her religious freedom to remain unaware of gay couple having sex.

“The whole point of our concern with the same-sex marriage is that the act, that God has not condoned it,” Scott said. “I can’t condone what he’s condemned, I just can’t go there. So to ask or to force American citizens to condone something that’s against their deeply held religious convictions is wrong. So whether you call it marriage or you call it a civil union, you’re still asking your fellow citizens to embrace something that goes against their First Amendment religious protections.”

Okay, let’s try to follow the logic:

1. God says being gay is wrong.

2. Gay people want to get married.

3. Gay people shouldn’t be allowed to get married because God says being gay is wrong.

4. Letting gay people get married is therefore a violation of the religious freedom of Christians because allowing gay people to get married forces them to “condone” something that God says is wrong.

So why doesn’t this “logic” apply to letting non-Christians get married? Or adulterers? Or those who covet things? God says those things are wrong too (from their perspective, of course), so why aren’t you being forced to “condone” adultery by allowing adulterers to get married? Or divorcees? Nope, it’s only the gays. Special pleading for the win.

"Smith didn't debunk anything since as Shapiro noted that questions about Rosatom’s control of uranium ..."

Gorka Lies About Clinton and Uranium ..."
"To quote $HERSELF, "discovery is a bitch."Note that having made the threat, (IANAL) Moore has ..."

Alabama Media Group Laughs Off Lawsuit ..."
"I'd like to see someone sponsor his show and run ads that were counter-information ... ..."

Hannity Shows the Usual Right Wing ..."
"More Hannity boycotts hated so much by the deplorable base? Say it ain't so!Won't somebody ..."

Hannity Shows the Usual Right Wing ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • wreck

    “Scott said she couldn’t even support civil unions because that would lend state support of “the act” that “God has not condoned””

    WTF do civil unions have to do with eating bacon-wrapped shrimp?

  • eric

    Scott said banning same-sex marriage ensured an equal number of men and women were married.

    That only works if all those gays and lesbians would get straight-married if the ban was in force. If they wouldn’t get straight married, then you have this situation:

    1. If there are unequal percentages of gay men and women, a ban creates an inequality in the number of married men and women. If you want to equalize the number of married men and women, you need to allow SSM.

    2. If there are equal percentages of gay men and women, neither a ban nor allowing it will do anything.

  • John Pieret

    Scott said banning same-sex marriage ensured an equal number of men and women were married.

    She is apparently under the impression that feminists want the 50/50 number only because that marks their percentage of the population. Of course, to the extent that any feminists are saying that, it isn’t just for the symbolic significance of the number, it is a goal to make sure women have an equal say in how the country is run. I’m sure most feminists wouldn’t care if some of the women in statehouses, House and Senate were lesbians. And what could be more empowering than the option to marry the person you love?

  • scienceavenger

    I hope I am not alone in being sick to death of Republicans playing the “If you support X but not Y you are a hypocrite” game. It’s just a way to avoid substantive discussion of the issues. The comparisons are never valid anyway, revealing they either don’t understand their opposition at all, or they are just being dishonest.

    If they think Policy X is a bad idea, then make them make their case. If they bring up something else, sorry we’ll talk about that later. Back to Policy X…

  • Scientismist

    Your analysis still fails to make sense of the notion that feminists should oppose same-sex marriage. As near as I can tell, that goes like this:

    1. One man & one woman conventional marriage assures that an equal number of men and women are married.

    2. Allowing same-sex marriage could decouple that ratio, which can remain 50/50 only if an equal number of gay male couples and lesbian couples decide to wed.

    3. So in the interests of “equality” feminists should reject same-sex marriage in order to keep the male/female marriage ratio of 50/50. And that’s her laugh.

    Actually, aside from an atrocious sense of humor, her real problem is that as a puritanical bigot she has this delusion about an invisible cosmic despot that requires that sex be tightly coupled to the exclusive goal of producing ever more puritanical bigots (they do better when raised by a mated pair of bigots). And it is her right, under the first amendment’s guarantee of free exercise of delusions, that Congress must indeed make laws that establish this delusion as a requirement for all citizens, so that she doesn’t have to condone any disagreement.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1017276335 Strewth

    My freedom to not know gay sex is going on? Really? Really? Wow. I mean, wow. She wants the state to enforce her volountary ignorance. That’s the most profoundly selfish, totalitarian, and downright stupid thing I’ve read in living memory. Wow.

    I’m reeling, here.

  • cptdoom

    So why doesn’t this “logic” apply to letting non-Christians get married? Or adulterers? Or those who covet things? God says those things are wrong too (from their perspective, of course), so why aren’t you being forced to “condone” adultery by allowing adulterers to get married? Or divorcees? Nope, it’s only the gays. Special pleading for the win.

    Never mind marriages – by this argument these “Christians” cannot support the First Amendment because it forces them to condone heresy and blasphemy. Why do they hate America?

  • lofgren

    The religious freedom issue cuts against them. Many Christian churches WANT to perform gay weddings. Maybe not most, but definitely more than a few. And of course there are other religions besides Christianity that also want to be able to perform gay weddings.

    They really need to stop making this argument. It does not help them.

  • anat

    I suppose in the name of equality feminists should demand that families with children of one sex be required to exchange half of them with children of a different sex? Does this woman even think?

  • Hoosier X

    It’s a new rhetorical device. The Gish Gallop word salad.

  • http://www.ranum.com Marcus Ranum

    She is interrupting my freedom to blissfully ignore wingnuts!

  • http://www.facebook.com/eo.raptor.3 eoraptor

    Oh, you feminazis! She’s saying that, as an individual, you want a 50:50 ratio in the House, then you should also want a 50:50 ratio in your home. That makes complete and utter sense…

    In Backwardsville.

  • peterh

    “…ensured an equal number of men and women were married.”

    Which proves what beyond one’s ability to count?

  • Sastra

    “So my laugh is…”

    Ok, wait. She’s not drawing a conclusion. She’s laughing.

    A laugh is neither true nor false; it just is.

  • RickR

    “…and violate her religious freedom to remain unaware of gay couples having sex.”

    Oh snap!

  • dragon

    I think she is implying that Feminists would be horribly unhappy if Colorado had a legislature that was 60/40 and Wyoming had one that was 40/60 – because reasons. And so on through each of the 50 states. To be consistent, in her mind, the Feminists would be equally mad at any state that wasn’t 50/50. And thus, in her mind, each and every individual marriage would need to be 50/50. She is incapable of thinking in aggregate.

    In reality Feminists would be pretty happy if Colorado and Wyoming got anywhere close to 40+% of representatives being women. I know I would be happier than I am with the current state of affairs.

  • dingojack

    So, taking Tamara Scott’s argument to the scale of the individual — she thinks* that feminists should not only support heteronormative marriage, just as she does, but that both should support all people being bisexual. Thus guaranteeing a 50/50 mix of sexualities…

    Or perhaps she wants mandated hermaphroditism**?

    @@ Dingo

    —————-

    * and I use the word very, very loosely here

    ** the kind of genitalia people have (and what they do with said genitals) seems to be of paramount importance to wingnuts, for some reason…

  • StevoR

    @10. Hoosier X : “It’s a new rhetorical device. The Gish Gallop word salad.”

    I don’t think its that new. Three words Sarah Palin’s book!

  • frankgturner

    @ Dingojack #17

    That is to say that genitals matter to wingnuts for those wingnuts who are aware that humans have genitals and that said genitals are used in procreation. Many seem to think the stork bring babies (which works as an argument in favor of SSM).

  • footface

    Ed, I think you forgot number 5:

    If people don’t get married they won’t have sex.

  • abb3w

    The second excerpt parses pretty well with the standard word salad parsing approach of picking out phatic croutons with the presumption of minimal semantic content.

    But that first bit? Even that doesn’t help. The only think I can think of is she actually believes something like “a feminist is a woman who has no chance of getting a man”.