Monday, June 14, 2010
Conservative CATO Institute On Board for Marriage Equality?
Marriage Equality for All Couples
Nearly a century after the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed that "marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man.' " That 1967 case, Loving v. Virginia, ended bans on interracial marriage in the 16 states that still had such laws. . .
Read more at: CATO Institute
And now, because I haven't done it in a while, some schooling for the FReepers, and those who think like them. Since I wouldn't last 10 minutes in their forum (they rabidly screen out dissent, particularly on this issue), I will give you some quotes from FreeRepublic.com on this article. Then a response from me. I apologize in advance for their use of language. I do not apologize for mine.
"Everyone has the same rights. The definition of marriage is one man and one woman. Everyone is equal under that definition. I can't marry someone of the same sex as myself, nor can I marry multiple people, nor can I marry an animal or whatever else someone might want to desire to change the definition to."
Though I'm legally married to a man in California (in a rather odd loophole), I do not hold that title in my residence in Nevada. The argument here is ridiculous. If I did mary a woman, it would be deeply unfair to her and unpleasant for me. These same FReepers would lambaste me for putting her--and any potential children--through that ordeal.
"Homosexuality is a behavior, not an identity. By allowing this purposeful distortion of meaning we already partially lose the argument as we have allowed dishonest people to frame the debate."
This is an old argument, and it ticks me off. Homosexuality is not a behavior, it is a sexual orientation. I was gay before I ever had sex. I'm gay right now and--at the moment--am not having sex. I had a best friend who is gay who was married to a woman for a while. He wasn't straight when he was doing that. Homosexuality can dictate behavior (or as in that last example, maybe not), but it is not a behavior. Dumb ass.
"Why not 2 siblings, multiple partners, a man and a goat? Once we remove the definition of marriage everythings fair game and only a judge’s opinion determines what’s legit."
Incestuous marriage is already illegal for everyone, gay or straight. Same for polygamy. And while it should be deeply offensive to have my relationship compared to bestiality (it's actually just deeply stupid), goats cannot consent, and therefore inelligible to enter into any sort of contract. And is there a huge contingent of people fighting for these other things? If so, let them fight their own fight and win or lose on their arguments' merits. These are separate issues.
"Two people of the same sex cannot join together as husband and wife - that requires one person to be a man and the other to be a woman. It has nothing to do with “hate” or “discrimination” - it is just the reality."
Hmm. So my legal marriage in California doesn't exist? Can I get my money back? It's all an illllluuuusion! Wishing something away doesn't make it so.
"The purpose of marriage is to encourage and promote safe home lives for kids. Nothing more. Since when to gay adults need that?"
Many people have kids outside of marrige. Many people are married and don't, can't or won't have kids. Many people marry after their child-bearing years. Unless marriage carries a requirement for having children, and childless marriages are annulled, this argument is moot.
"Looks like the gay mafia has taken over the CATO Institute."
Yeah, and you better watch out, because our leader--Sir Elton John--has infiltrated the marriage of your leader, Rush Limbaugh!!! The takeover has begun. . .
Quotes from: FreeRepublic