The Argument for Outlawing Gay Marriage

Maggie Gallaghers latest article is about Gay Marriage and how wrong it is that people argue that homosexuals should be allowed to get married.

For these Americans, gay marriage does not merely expand marriage to more people, it abolishes the historic core conception of marriage and replaces it with a new government-mandated genderless marriage. Gay marriage means that our maleness and femaleness does not matter, our capacity to create new life is irrelevant to the public project of marriage. Henceforth by government decree marriage will mean a commitment of any two people; marriage will become a product of individual desire not rooted in any natural order, not rooted in our history or traditions . . .

I don't know what that means except for I don't like Gay Marriage and therefore it shouldn't exist. And that's the core problem with those who oppose Gay Marriage - their argument never answers the key question; what gives you the right to say Gays can't get married? How does Gay Marriage actually hurt you?

The only answer is that it upsets traditional religious values. That's not enough. That should never be enough. And I don't understand my countrymen who say that that is enough.

Then there's this hilarious bit.

Ted Olson will talk in court this week like a civilized man. But Ted Olson, as much as any one man, is responsible for the idea that there is no real debate to be had about gay marriage, that all the legitimacy, all the arguments, all the good will and good reasons are on his side.

Yeah as opposed to those who are in favor of proposition 8 or who oppose Gay Marriage - they certainly are giving their opponents the benefit of the doubt. You certainly aren't arguing that all the good reasons are opposed to gay marriage.

It would be funny if it weren't so sad that conservatives can argue for treating homosexuals like second class citizens and then act like they are the persecuted ones, merely because people disagree with them.