The strange anti-gay world of Doug Mainwaring

If Doug Mainwaring really is gay (and I am not sure)     he is crazy. While you may not remember the name, you may recall that some gay guy testified before the Maryland Senate judiciary Committee in opposition to marriage equality. Not surprisingly, he has become NOM's new shiny object.

Claiming that marriage equality has been "hijacked by politicians," Mr. Mainwaring has written     in a Tea Party blog:

[Marriage equality] has been turned into a faux-civil rights issue, diminishing the meaning of the centuries-long struggle by Blacks for equality. If this truly were a matter of civil rights, President Obama would have unhesitatingly championed same sex marriage throughout his presidency, knowing that he is on the side of right.

If this guy really is gay he knows what most of the general population knows;  Sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic. Thus he knows that gay rights are civil rights. Whatever President Obama knows, or doesn't know is irrelevant to that conclusion. It is intellectually dishonest to suggest otherwise.

Mr. Mainwaring goes on to claim:

Judging by current statistics, a mandate to institute same sex marriage doesn’t exist — even among gays and lesbians. Not supposition, empirical fact.

Of course, virtually all LGBT citizens support marriage equality. Mr. Mainwaring's startling, and illogical, conclusion is based upon the number of same-sex marriages that have been consummated. It is irrelevant. That, too, is an intellectually dishonest proposition. The identical argument could probably have be made for interracial couples as the Supreme Court considered Loving v Virginia.

A civil right is not dependent upon usage. Civil rights are issues of equal protection under the law. Were there only one same-sex couple that wanted to marry, they should be entitled to do so. Marriage equality does not require same-sex couples to marry; it provides a choice. It is the same choice that heterosexual couples get to make. In other words, it is an issue of legal equality. The alternative is discrimination.

I don't know     nor do I have an interest in learning     anything about Mr. Mainwaring's private life. If he has a life partner then I want him to have the choice to marry that man. Nobody is compelling him to do so. Absent an honest argument, I have no idea why Mainwaring has staked out this territory. Perhaps he just wants some attention. Perhaps he wants status in Tea Party circles. I don't really care why. That, too, is irrelevant.