Supreme Court Hearing On Marriage Equality Apparently Involved More Than ‘Yes, Duh’
Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a landmark case for families across the country: a challenge to bans on same-sex marriage. Couples from four states–Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee, and Kentucky–were represented at the Supreme Court for two and a half hours’ worth of presented arguments both for and against the ban. Yes, we were surprised too that marriage equality opponents could take that much time with arguments–apparently they had at least slightly more to say than, “But we think it’s icky!”
Marriage equality is already on the books in 36 states, and hopefully it won’t be long before we round it out to a nice even 50–all families are real families, and should be treated equally and fairly under the law, no matter what variety of people they happen to be composed of. For those who still favor outdated dictionary definitions over actual families, let’s take a few minutes to investigate some of the arguments against marriage equality. (Justice Scalia, if you’re reading this and have any questions, let me know.)
Marriage has been defined as “one man, one woman” for thousands of years!
It’s also been defined as “one man, lots of women”; “one man, one woman, numerous concubines”; or, in the case of ancient Egypt, “one man and his sister”. Also, for a long time, women and people of color were treated like subhuman. ‘Old’ and ‘good’ are not synonyms.
If you let two men marry, the next step is letting a man marry his dog!
Find me a sentient dog who can consent to the relationship and sign a marriage license, and you can marry Fido if that’s what you really want. Mazel tov.
Same-sex marriage is un-Christian.
Fortunately for those of us who live in this country as non-Christians, that has zero bearing on the constitutionality of banning marriage equality. If you want to play by rules you make up, you’re going to have to stick to your home turf–i.e., church–and not the more or less secular democracy we call a government.
If same-sex couples are allowed to get married, different-sex couples won’t be interested in getting hitched and making babies.
Equal treatment under the law is not a Pokemon or rare baseball card: giving it out to everyone does not devalue it. That’s sort of the point. Besides, if celebrities and their seventeen-second marriages haven’t devalued the holy sacrament of matrimony, a pair of life partners, who both happen to have vaginas, devoting their lives to one another probably isn’t going to do the trick.
Everyone already has equal rights under the law–they can already get married, they just have to marry a person of the opposite sex. Allowing same-sex marriage would give them an EXTRA right, and that’s not fair.
Good news! Under marriage equality, you too will have the equal right to marry someone of the same sex. Please use your enthusiasm at that prospect to inform your future opinions on marriage equality.
Children raised by same-sex parents will have a tough time growing up.
Well, yeah, but that’s because of jerks like you who think there’s something wrong with the composition of their family. That’s a much stronger reason for doing something about adults who are dicks to children about their two mommies or two daddies than it is to break apart those families.
Buddy, I live in Wisconsin. At least hell will be warm.
(Image: miro kovacevic / iStock / Getty)