This may be the dumbest argument against marriage equality I have seen a wingnut give in at least a week. It’s all the more striking because the writer, Dana Loesch, seems to believe that she’s making an intellectual argument. In it, she’s arguing against a colleague, Tommy Christopher, who pointed out the contrast between GOProud’s existence and the fact that none of the RNC candidates support marriage equality. She thinks everybody else has their understanding of the word “equal” wrong. Let’s tear it up:

Tommy Christopher’s reasoning is only valid if one presupposes that marriage is a union created and controlled by the state for business purposes; as my liberal feminist mother would say it’s a “piece of paper that lets you do your taxes together.” This is where the entire point is lost by the left

.

Governmental involvement in marriage is limited to those purposes, yes. That is why it’s unconstitutional for the government to discriminate against gay couples on the basis of sexual orientation. This is not difficult material.

Republicans don’t believe that marriage is a state invention: they believe that it is divine and that to force people of faith to redefine their religious beliefs and practices to include behavior which is discussed in Scripture as being not one with which God jives – is actually the government breaking “separation of church and state.”

Yes, well, Republicans believe lots of things that are simply false. They have that right, but they don’t deserve to have their ideas accorded the same respect as those that can be verified and proven as true. Many Republicans think evolution is a myth. They are wrong, and also stupid. Moreover, no one is asking these wingnuts to “redefine” their marriages in any way! The religious aspect of the marriage of Suzy and Bill Wingnut, how they choose to solemnize it before a honeymoon in Branson and a quick stop by Wal-Mart, before moving into a tract house in the exurbs, is irrelevant to the government’s recognition of their marriage. This is why straight marriages are not tiered based on whether the couple is religiously observant. The signature on the marriage license is the signature on the marriage license, whether it comes from a pastor, a justice of the peace or Kathy Griffin. Moving on:

Why is it that when the subject of rights comes up, people of faith are the ones that must compromise their rights, a practice instituted by a faith that they alone observe?

They’re not. Compromising. Their. Rights. Again: the gay couple down the street being afforded equal rights is not infringing upon Suzy and Bill Wingnut’s religious marriage, because the government doesn’t have shit to do with their religious marriage! It’s a contract, Dana. Not with “god.” A legal contract. Seriously, she thinks she’s being clever here.

How is it unequal that everyone can enter into the same civil agreement but those who follow a faith that others do not seek divine blessing on their union? It’s a benefits argument, so have civil unions – but if there is a desire for more than the equal benefits provided by government, it presents the question of whether it’s about benefits or destroying part of Christianity.

Because when the government uses the word “marriage,” Dana, they’re Not Talking About God! My sweet lord…

Also? Let’s stop being cute and pretending there is something special about Christian Marriage, as opposed to other marriages. The only thing different about them is that they end up in divorce more often. The fact that a couple chooses to believe that their marriage is marked down in a book in the sky is completely irrelevant. This being America, they are free to believe that, though, and no one will take it away from them.

And if you’re displeased your perception of “inequality” so far as the tradition of “marriage” applies, take it up with God. That’s not inequality, that’s religious observance.

Uh huh, private religious observance that the government couldn’t care less about. And really, if you want to get into “marriage tradition” and “God,” the polygamists have a better corner on that market than fundamentalists. Inconvenient, I know.

Government has no place in marital affairs and Christians themselves should have protested the moment that government observance morphed into interference; government regulation gives the false impression that marriage is just a fancy name for “union” and not, in fact, a blessed union by observance of faith.

But that’s the way it is, if you have a problem with it, fight that fight, otherwise, you have nothing left to say, la la la, goodbye.