This may be the weakest argument against gay marriage I've heard:
And Professor Robert George, a Princeton University constitutional scholar and co-founder of the Religious Coalition for Marriage, points to another danger to be avoided. In a recent Associated Press interview, he noted that if homosexual marriage is legalized, individuals who believe in traditional marriage could be treated as bigots and their religious views on homosexual marriage could be subject to attack -- and possibly even prosecution.
Okay, and? Imagine this argument being used against interracial marriage - "If interracial marriage is legalized, individuals who believe in traditional marriage could be treated as bigots and their religous views subject to attack." And? This is a bad thing? If your religious beliefs include the belief that the races should not marry, your religious views should be attacked and you should be treated as a bigot. Prosecuted? Absolutely not, and I'll stand as strongly against any law that prevents anyone from speaking their disapproval of homosexuality or gay marriage or, for that matter, interracial marriage. Incidentally, has anyone ever been arrested for speaking out against interracial marriage? Of course not. That's just a red herring, and Robert George, an accomplished legal scholar, damn well knows it.
- Log in to post comments
I've seen bigots attempt to "support" that argument by pointing out that in Canada, which allows same-sex marriage, people can be (and have been) prosecuted for making statements intended to incite hate against gay people. But those hate-speech laws existed before Canada allowed same-sex marriage, and are applicable to any identifiable group, not just gay people. There's no legal or even conceptual tie between the two things (the opponents also fail to mention that there are strong religious exemptions in the hate-speech laws).
It should also be noted that Canadian-style hate-speech laws couldn't get upheld in the US unless the First Amendment were repealed.
Truly the wackiest argument against same-sex marriage I've ever heard is that it would cost a lot of money to reprint dictionaries to include the new "definition" of marriage.
Holy crap. The same Robert George who was co-author of this, and member of the President's Council on Bioethics? That surprises me, yet it doesn't surprise me at all.
Yes, the same Robert George. He's a fairly respected legal scholar from the Princeton Law School. But he is one of the primary authors of the Federal Marriage Amendment (along with Robert Bork).
If it walks like a bigot and talks like a bigot, it's a legal scholar fighting a noble crusade to protect our children from the heathens.
My $250,000 is still safely in my hands.
Oooh! Jay at Stop the ACLU said we could use his post on the FMA as an open thread to debate the issue! Won't you join me by clicking here? Just once I would like to see a large group of rational thinkers descend upon that site en masse. Spread the word!
Religious views subject to attack?? Say it ain't so. It would be like opening an open discussion regarding dogma. Sure that cannot be tolerated.
1. Bob Jones University -- where they like to keep the races separate.
2. People can call you a lot of things, but can the Government actually prosecute for your beliefs? If the Government does this, guess who will be standing up with you to fight this unconstitutional intrusion into your private beliefs? That's right (oh irony of ironies) ... the ACLU.
Heck, this George guy is positively progressive comapred to a commenter at StopTheACLU.com, who wrote:
"Please don't tell me you are gullible enough to buy that it is bigotry to consider homosexuality a crime. I suppose you also think it is bigoted to view murder, pedophile, theft, etc as a crime. Homosexuality can cause sickness and death to a significant percent of those that chose to embrace it. That makes it an act of tyranny as it deprives human beings of their right to health and life. Only fools believe self destructive behavior is a natural human right. Do you know how much taxpayers have to pay the medical community so homosexuals can get their AIDS treatment."
He then goes to reiterate "The shear medical cost to taxpayers" and cites a 15% failure rate for condoms, a figure probably pulled from one of the wingnut-administered abstinence-only "sex education" programs.
By his reasoning, heteros should be barred from eateries because as a rule we're less physically fit and therefore fatter, and because we earn less money on average we are also a giant burden on social-services programs. Something tells me we have a higher divorce rate too.
His statistics about aids among homosexuals is junk science as is his condom failure rates.
Perhaps Professor George can point to all the charges of bigotry, not to mention prosecutions, against Roman Catholics for continuing to uphold the biblical standard of no divorce. Hell, I might even issue one of those quarter million dollar challenges to him to do just that.
That is a silly argument, all right. I think we should put it in the ring with this one and let them duke it out for the title: "There is no need for a special right of homosexual marriage. A gay man is already just as free to marry a woman as a straight man is."
Several conservatives have put that one forward, but if you push me for a cite I'll have to dig up Orson Scott Card's anti-gay marriage rant. It's my favorite.
On the issue of religious rights, though, there does seem to be a collision coming. There's a case here in California in which a Christian school expelled two teenage girls because it was suspected that they were lesbians. One of the girls' mothers is now suing, contending that the school is a business and therefore covered by California state law that prohibits discrimination by any business based on sexual orientation.
Now this is subtly but importantly different from the Bob Jones University case. BJU was deprived of its tax-exempt status because of its racial policies. Frankly, I'm fine with that: I don't think bigotry should be subsidized by taxpayers. On the other hand, if BJU were willing to forego federal money, then I think they should be legally free to be just as prejudiced as their little pseudoChristian hearts desire.
So I'm not sure I'd be as comfortable with the idea of the state of California stepping in and ordering a Christian school to do something that is against their religious principles. It's not a gay marriage issue, but it is a gay rights issue. And it's not quite prosecution, but it's close.
It's a circular argument, isn't it?
If we start treating gays as full citizens, with all their civil rights, then those who believe they aren't, and don't deserve the same civil rights as everyone else, will be accused of being bigots.
Well, um, yeah. Exactly, but like you said, that would be because they are.
"I'm not bigoted! I'm just religius!"
I need to make that into a bumper sticker.