Opponents of Same-Sex Marriage Issue Their Final Bigoted Thoughts

My Tuesday column is ready to roll, beginning with this:

While most of America appears to be getting in line with history by embracing marriage equality, there continues to be a strikingly large pile of holdouts who obviously don’t recall the infamy of those who opposed interracial marriage, women’s suffrage, integration, the Civil Rights Act and the freeing of the slaves. On second thought, most of us remember the sociopaths who desperately wanted to preserve slavery. They were called Confederates and around 300,000 of them were killed in the name of their sinister, futile and ultimately extinct cause.

And so we ought to remember with similar disdain the names of the people who continue to believe that gay Americans are second-class citizens not worthy of equal protection and civil rights. The list includes nearly the Republican Party minus two members of Congress (Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Richard L. Hanna) along with a gradually shrinking list of Democrats.

In the House, Democratic opponents of same-sex marriage include Reps. John Barrow, Sanford Bishop, Henry Cuellar, Gene Green, Dan Lipinski, Jim Matheson, Mike McIntyre, Collin Peterson, Nick Rahall, Bill Enyart and Pete Gallego. In the Senate, it’s Sens. Joe Manchin, Kay Hagan, Bill Nelson, Heidi Heitkamp, Mary Landrieu, Tim Johnson, Joe Donnelly and Mark Pryor. These are all Democrats who are, shockingly, to the right of Bill O’Reilly on marriage equality, and it’s time to get with the program or be relegated into the where-are-they-now file.

And as the walls begin to crumble around the last of the holdouts, their most ridiculous counterarguments have become even more ridiculous. [continue reading here]

  • muselet

    Bob, what you seem to forget is that Erick Erickson and Mike Huckabee—you could also have added Ross Douthat, too—aren’t trying to convince anyone of anything. They’re not even trying to engage anyone in debate. They’re trying to provide other marriage-equality opponents with talking points. What you (and I presume everyone here except for the trolls) see as “wafer-thin gibberish” the Right sees as “common sense” if not winning arguments.

    As for Sue Everhart, I stand by what I said last night.


  • bphoon

    Read Chris Mooney’s book The Republican Brain to understand why, in the face of all logic and reason, these folks persist trying to argue against simple equality.

    It kind of tickles me, though, to hear opponents try to argue that same sex marriage will “destroy traditional marriage”. Really? So, which marriage traditions are we speaking of? Men having multiple wives? Men having one wife but multiple mistresses? Using women as chattel property to be sold to the highest bidder? Which one? Also, if same sex marriage “destroys” marriage, what does that mean? Does that mean that for every same sex marriage that happens an opposite sex couple has to get divorced? Nobody’s come to my door yet to tell me I have to get divorced because Adam and Steve of Washington, DC got married, so I don’t feel particularly threatened.

    While they blather on about the “sanctity” of marriage, I have to wonder what, exactly, is sanctified about a civil contract. Legally, that’s all a marriage is and nobody’s trying to tell churches what they have to do, so what the fuck?

    Arguments against equal treatment before the law are all bullshit in my estimation and the result of what Mooney calls motivated reasoning.

  • KenStarr

    “On second thought, most of us remember the sociopaths who desperately wanted to preserve slavery. They were called Confederate…”

    No. They were called conservatives.

    Before April of 1861 they were conservatives and clinging to the same Reich-wing crap of John Calhoun. They had little to nothing in common with northern Democrats.

    The Reich-wingers always find a way to claim Democrats were the ones that held back blacks and civil rights from the 1870’s until LBJ, but that is bunk. It was conservatives in the Democratic Party who were able to delay, kill in committee, or filibuster to death legislation benefiting all Americans.

    The “Solid South” Democrats could have cared less about the Democratic Party. Before anything else, they were first conservatives socially and economically. Democrats did not flee the Democratic Party in the 1970’s; conservatives did. And Nixon and Buchanan helped them do it and destroyed the Republican Party.

  • i_am_allwrite

    “If it was natural, they would have the equipment to have a sexual relationship.”

    Does this mean that the women in lesbian porn aren’t engaged in sex? And if it isn’t sex, is it even porn? I’m confused, but suddenly less ashamed of what’s in my Google Chrome history.

  • GrafZeppelin127

    Opponents of equality/proponents of discrimination are really flailing now. Their anger and hatred are getting the better of them, to the point of desperation. They know this thing is going to happen, they know they can’t stop it, and they know they have no argument that isn’t based on, and doesn’t reveal, their own subjective prejudices.

    Marriage exclusivists are less depressing than gun fetishists, if only because the latter invest and rely so heavily on a sense of their own virtue and heroism whereas the former have a harder time, and come across as much more ridiculous, making it about themselves. They both get their collective rocks off feeling persecuted and heroic, but the thing exclusivists wrongfully believe is being “taken away from” them is something abstract and intangible, whereas gun fans at least have a solid, tangible object to cling to and protect from imaginary taking. In addition, gun fans demand to be recognized and honored for their virtue and heroism in ways that marriage exclusivists do not.

    I would like to believe that most Americans “evolved” on this issue in much the same way I did many years ago: By asking “Why not?” and finding that there was no good answer.

  • Michael J. West