Sunday, July 5, 2015

Plural marriage is irrelevant and marriage equality is done - Finished - Over

The usual suspects (From Ryan Anderson to Huckabee to Perkins et al) seem intent on continuing a debate on an issue that has been resolved. Marriage discrimination in the United States is finished. Marriage equality is the law of the land. Complaining about the five affirming justices of the Supreme Court is not going to change that. Nor is criticizing the way that the opinion was written. Nor does claiming that Justices Kagan and Ginsburg should resign because they officiated same-sex marriages in places where they were already legal. They are not going anywhere.

There does not exist coherent debate over marriage equality because it is a done deal. There are no points to be won. The controversy ended on July 26.

I'm pretty sure that Justice Ginsburg doesn't give a rat's ass about the criticism from conservative Christians. Nor does Justice Kagan. The Ginsburgs and the Scalias are good friends who socialize; the animus stays at the Court.

The latest version of the anti marriage equality rebellion is the rhetorical question “why not more than two?” This will be followed with an assertion that the gay community has been dishonest all along because some guy in Utah thinks that the ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges should allow him to legally marry more than one woman. We were being dishonest by claiming that plural marriage was not at least a collateral issue. It wasn't. Thus the intent is to prove that Obergefell was wrongly decided and that the gay community are disingenuous. It's a fail on both counts.

I, for one, am not going to be drawn into a pointless debate. The truth is that I neither know nor care if Obergefell opens the door to polygamy. As for plural marriage there seems to be a paucity of advocates. I have no idea what the arguments for and against allowing plural marriage are. It has to stand on its own. When both sides file briefs (if it gets to that point) I might want to evaluate the pros and cons and form a considered opinion. Until then I neither know nor care about plural marriage.

And more more thing. The same folks are working very hard to appropriate the term “pro-marriage” which fits into their fantasy about Roe v. Wade. The truth is that we are, and will continue to be, “pro-marriage” which is what this was all about in the first place. The goal of these people was to ban same-sex marriage and call it defending marriage or standing up for marriage or numerous other bullshit constructs. Trying to keep people who want to marry from marrying is not “pro-marriage.” We should not allow them to hijack the phrase.

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.