When making a Constitutional Argument
The gay marriage debate has devolved into the most offensive perverse sounding reflection on 'man on dog' bestiality and polygamy, which wasn't ever the question and doesn't follow rationally or logically from what the argument is. It is a non-sequitor and should never be used by any lawyer in any Presidential debate because any lawyer in any Presidential debate should know how offensive that sounds to people who are already gay and married and all of their extended family and friends. I don't know what the statistics are on those numbers but If cousins of family members' in-laws count, I am one of them. I also have good gay friends so am offended for them, while I am not gay. I know several gay people who serve in Saint Matthews cathedral in many of the non-priestly or clerical functions there, because it is in Dupont Circle, DC, one of the highest populations of gay people in the country. They even have a program called "Always our Children" meaning, gay or not, we love you.
If you don't think that they should be allowed to be married on constitutional grounds, or even moral grounds, you could say something like being gay is a behavior attribute, and the anti-discrimination statutes address characteristics that are immutables like gender and race, so we don't discriminate against persons for non-behavioral attributes. Behaviors have always been allowed to be regulated by the state, and behaviors that have not been considered appropriate for protected status have not been given protected status. That would be a way not to be off the wall offensive. We can then disagree or not on what may be given protected status. And it isn't insulting my family's in-laws cousins or my favorite eucharistic minister. Note to Santorum- get better help.
No comments:
Post a Comment