Thursday, March 5, 2015

Following NOM's logic "Sister Wives" should cause us to consider banning heterosexual marriage


National Organization for Marriage is desperate for a winning argument. Around NOM-world the theory goes that equal measures of fancy footwork and prayer will change the outcome at the Supreme Court. I think that Brian Brown really believes the bullshit that they use to troll for donations.

The “throuple” that NOM pictures in their missive is obviously a stunt to gain attention. Three lesbians claim to be married to each other by way of a commitment ceremony. So what? The other is three gay guys in Thailand. Who cares? Both stories are via the trashy New York Post, Anyway, by that logic Sister Wives should serve to ban traditional marriage. NOM is making the argument that the very existence of plural marriage (notwithstanding its lack of recognition) disqualifies the participants, and those similarly situated, to a legally recognized marriage. There goes traditional marriage.

Brown goes off on a disingenuous rant:
Love is love, the left is fond of saying. When you get right down to it, that is really the only rationale offered for redefining marriage — they say that redefining marriage is just about allowing people who love each other to come together and celebrate their love. Disallowing that is discrimination against those who simply love differently.
If Mr. Brown wants to really understand the rationale for same-sex marriage, all he has to do is to read the briefs from the opposing side in all of the litigation that NOM has lost. Mr. Brown has not the slightest interest in the rationale for marriage equality. He is not content to simply abide by the rules of his religion. Rather, he seeks to impose the teachings of the Catholic Church on everyone by force of law. So, yes, that is discrimination and that makes Mr. Brown a bigot.

If Mr. Brown wants to really understand the rationale for same-sex marriage he might start with the brief of April DeBoer et al in DeBoer v. Snyder which is now before the Supreme Court (oral argument on April 28).

The Church says 2 + 2 = 5. No amount of rational argument will convince Mr. Brown otherwise. You can save the videos of two apples plus two other apples. It's five. Then Cardinal Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict) even wrote a lengthy diatribe on why it's five, so it's five. FIVE!

Brown continues with the usual religious blather about the purpose for marriage being to crank out kids and then we get this tidbit:
I have done countless interviews over the years and debated numerous proponents of redefined marriage. And in almost every one, I ask the basic question: if the complementarity of men and women are denied as an essential element of marriage, what is the basis for limiting marriage to two people?

I haven't ever received a credible answer.
Actually (although Brown is begging the question) it has been answered numerous times in numerous forums. Indeed, one of the judges on the panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit hearing the Indiana and Wisconsin cases asked that very question. The answer was, and is, quite simple; Polygamy must stand on its own and be subject to the same scientific and social scrutiny as same-sex marriage. I don't know when and where Mr. Brown asked this question but I suspect that he wasn't listening to, or interested in, the answer. Brown thinks it's a gotcha so it must be a gotcha. A credible answer does not exist for Mr. Brown so that is how it must be.

Brian has never learned that less is more when you write these things. Cheers for Roy Moore. Tears for Barronelle Stutzman. He writes Thomistic treatises that nobody will read in their entirety. And they always end pretty much the same way:


I might actually miss Mr. Brown when NOM finally succumbs.

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.