Like a horse and carriage
Megan McArdle posted something that inflamed Eric into writing one of his usual good posts on the gay marriage debate:
In the incident cited by Megan McArdle, gay activists are apparently claiming that two heterosexuals should not be allowed to marry each other if they are of the same sex. Yet nowhere have I heard “heterosexual activists” making a similar argument (that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry each other if they are of the opposite sex).
Clearly, there’s a lot of misunderstanding — both about existing marriage laws, as well as laws which would legalize same sex marriage.
What gives?
I have no idea, man, but when you find out, let me know.
Actually, maybe you should leave me in blissful ignorance. I’m in my early 30s and in good shape, but I’m afraid hearing a detailed explanation of these people’s non-thinking might give me a coronary. Here’s part of that article:
Two heterosexual fellows in Canada, invoking their rights under Canada’s recently passed same-sex marriage legislation, have announced their intentions to marry. Drinking pals Bill Dalrymple, 56, and Bryan Pinn, 65, intend to marry not because they are gay but for the tax breaks.
News of the pending engagement didn’t sit well with same-sex marriage activist Bruce Walker, a Toronto lawyer. He complained that marriage should be for love.
You know something, bitch? The day our civilization puts people like you in a position to adjudicate (1) whether what my boyfriend and I have is love and (2) whether that qualifies us for government goodies–that’s the day I depart for, like, Zimbabwe without looking back. I don’t think it’s possible to verbalize how angry this kind of thing makes me.
To the extent that gay activists began formulating their ideas about marriage a decade or so ago, when the opposing argument most frequently encountered was “Gays have sex, not love,” I can see where it comes from. The problem is, the argument has moved on, and a lot of activists haven’t. What kind of topsy-turvy world are we living in when queer activists are the ones who want to peer into other people’s bedrooms and pass judgment on what goes on there? And who’s to say that Dalrymple and Pinn–who are friends, after all–don’t love each other? I think I could fairly say that I love my drinking buddies (especially after I’ve had a few).
The point that gays fall in love and make the sacrifices necessary to take care of each other is an important one, but it cannot serve as the fulcrum for an argument in favor of gay marriage. How gay activists can fail to be aware of this by now is beyond me–their inability to see themselves as the public sees them is astounding–but the more they push the “We’re cute! We’re cuddly! Approve of us!” line, the more they reinforce the feeling that we suffer from arrested development and have not taken adult control over our lives.
Sean, I’d tell you you’re brilliant but that would be understatement. Anyway, thanks for the link!
special rights?
Via Megan McArdle (guest blogging at InstaPundit), I see evidence of a disturbing new trend: an apparent claim — by gay activists, no less — that marriage should be restricted on the basis of sexual preference. This tired issue (same…
Amen. When I read the article, I couldn’t believe that it was a gay activist who was essentially asking the government to pry into these men’s private lives!
I find it amusing that no one seems to have a problem with the opposite, a gay man and a lesbian getting married. No one would even consider asking why. Yet, when these 2 straight guys say they want to get the same tax advantages as a married couple, the gay community collectively craps itself. Well, maybe not the whole community, but I sense that this lawyer’s attitude is pretty representative of many people, as I’ve heard it before.
Great piece.
Yes, Virginia, it will open the floodgates
I very much believe that marriage needs to remain a covenant between one man and one woman, for both moral…
Thanks, Eric. I’m blushing as always.
And thanks to you, too, Caltechgirl. It is true that the government will pry into your married life if you marry a foreigner and are trying to get him or her a green card. And most people would think it unethical, if not immoral, to enter such a marriage. Otherwise, yeah.
In regards to how representative the ninny lawyer in the article was…well, remember that the people who are quoted by journalists tend to have pronounced positions on the issue under discussion. Reporters who want a reaction to some development in the gay marriage debate will tend to call up the Give Us Marriage Rights or We’ll Hold Our Breath until We Turn Blue and Don’t Think We Won’t Do It Coalition…or to rely on its press packet. Unsurprisingly, that means that gays quoted on same-sex marriage in the media tend to be gung-ho supporters.
I suspect that there are far more who think along the lines of, Well, sure, marriage would be great, but all I really need is to be able to take care of my partner if there’s an accident or illness and to be able to provide for her after I’m gone. I don’t care what it’s called. Or I just don’t want anyone to be able to come in and take the children away because we’re gay. You just don’t hear from them as often because they don’t make riveting copy.
It’s been a while…
so here are some posts that I thought were interesting/noteworthy/funny as hell over the last few weeks….. Check out some blogs you may not have read before… First up, in the funny as hell category, Helen of Everyday Stranger sends…
Give Us Marriage Rights or We’ll Hold Our Breath
GUMRWHOB.
That makes a GREAT acronym.
::Runs away stealing it::
You’re right–that’s kind of catchy. Hope you’ll lend it out every once in a while.