Wednesday, April 3, 2013

Dissecting some of Thomas Peters' Dysfunctional Logic

National Organization for Marriage's Thomas Peters is not terribly bright. Nevertheless, he is proficient at memorizing talking points. According to NOM, over the weekend he was on an unnamed show on MSNBC and said this:
Laws against interracial marriage were meant to keep the races separate so they wouldn't have children together and they were wrong, marriage is meant to bring men and women together so they have children which is right. You cannot compare these two things at all
Marriage is not meant to bring two people together so that they can crank out children. Were that the case then nobody north of 55 years of age would be able to marry. That's just some nonsense cobbled together to propose a reason to oppose marriage equality. More importantly, the two issues are comparable because the Supreme Court has ruled several times that being able to marry the person of one's choice is a basic civil right.
... and furthermore, I think it's really important what she brought up, the 45 million Americans who have voted to protect marriage are not motivated by animus towards gay people, they're motivated out of love for the institution,
Oh, bullshit. Family Research Council and more recently NOM have worked very hard over the last ten years to convey the idea that gay people are a threat to children. As for "love of the institution," that is preposterous. Allowing gays to marry takes nothing away from traditional marriage. If it did then someone could articulate what that is     and nobody has.
... and [crosstalk] if the Supreme Court were to rule that laws defining marriage are akin to bigotry, then every person in this country who believes that children have a right to a mother and father will be treated as bigots under the law,
Back the hell up. The Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of laws. Don't they teach civics anymore? Moreover, these are not a bunch of people who believe that children have a right to a mother and father. This crew wants to ban gay marriage. They're not interested in children and they are not "defending" anything. Because of a religious objection, these people want to prevent gay people from getting married. It has nothing to do with kids. If someone wants to make LBGT people second class citizens then they are a bigot per se. All people who oppose gay marriage are not bigots. Most anti-gay bigots oppose gay marriage.
... that's why Steve and others might agree with me that the Supreme Court's not going to go there. We can work this out through the political process. The debate can continue. Questions as central as marriage should not be decided by the Supreme Court they should be decided by the people.
The Court is going to do what it is going to do. Peters' nonsensical talking points are irrelevant as are, probably, the esoteric pleadings of Robby George et al. The conventional wisdom seems to be that Prop 8 won't survive a challenge to standing and that Section 3 of DOMA is all but history.

Peters reminds me of the mindless cheerleaders who are out there in the fourth quarter with their team trailing 55-0. Peters probably believes that he has God's private number and that "this" cannot possibly happen.
Enhanced by Zemanta

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.