Cuter than any other picture I could have chosen to illustrate this piece.
The National Organization for Marriage continues to grasp at straws, fighting against the fact that their simple-minded bigotry just isn’t long for this world. On their blog at the moment, they’re joyfully trumpeting a bigoted essay from a Louisiana college student, which they are using to suggest that all the polls are wrong, and that young people actually don’t support marriage equality by ridiculous margins. Of course, in the real world, seventy percent of young people support marriage equality, but NOM is thrilled to highlight the words of one Christine Guttery, a student as LSU. In all likelihood, she’ll regret her words within a few years, but for now, let’s see:
The Louisiana Constitution defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. I believe Louisiana should stand by this definition.
I am against same-sex marriage, not because I hate the LGBT community — I don’t. Everyone deserves to be treated with equal respect and kindness, regardless of their sexual orientation. I am against same-sex marriage because same-sex relationships do not adhere to the definition of marriage, and there is no logical reason to redefine it.
You’re not treating everyone with equal respect and kindness, regardless of sexual orientation, if you do not support marriage equality. In fact, you’re disrespecting the dignity of the entire LGBT community right now, and all your LGBT classmates know it. The logical reason to expand marriage to include same sex couples is that science and common sense tell us that sexual orientation is a fixed part of a person’s being and that it’s not reasonable to expect gay people to enter marriages which are unnatural for us. Since the government provides benefits to consenting adults who fall in love with each other and commit to each other when they are straight, there is no logical reason to deny that same benefit to gays and lesbians.
Proponents of same-sex marriage appeal to the courts that people should be allowed to call things whatever they want to, regardless of reality.
Wow. That is…not what same-sex marriage proponents say. Is this your first writing assignment, Christine?
The definition of marriage as it has been understood for thousands of years is that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, not only of mind and will but also of body. This includes sexual intercourse – the type that can, but does not always, lead to the woman’s pregnancy. Both fertile and infertile heterosexual couples can bodily unite in this way, whether or not the act produces children.
That’s not true. Actually, the definition of marriage has changed untold numbers of times. If we were still following the laws of biblical marriage, you, Christine, would probably end up being one among many wives.
The most common argument I hear is that everyone deserves to be happy with the one they love, and government should not deny anyone that right. But opponents of same-sex marriage are not proposing that same-sex couples be banned by law from choosing to have a relationship, but rather that such a union cannot be defined as marriage, because the nature of the union contradicts that of marriage.
Your definition of marriage is a religious one, Christine. That doesn’t mean it’s not important, but that your religious view is of no importance in a secular society with a Constitution that guarantees equal protection. You’re free to believe what you want, but when you push your religious view of marriage on everyone else, you’re slamming up against our equal protection.
The main reason we regulate marriage in the first place, as opposed to other types of relationships, is due to the social value of marriage. Robert George, professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University, points out that ideals of traditional marriage law include fidelity, monogamy, and healthy child-bearing/rearing.
Robert George’s reasoning on the purposes of regulating marriage is entirely made up, and this is why his side keeps losing at the Supreme Court.
According to George, the best sociological evidence shows that “children fare best on virtually every indicator of well-being when reared by their wedded biological parents.” Contrastingly, there is little to no evidence to support the idea that revisionist marriage is a good thing for a child.
George is lying and/or citing one study, by Mark Regnerus, which has been roundly discredited and laughed away from the grown-up table for its shoddy methodology, underhanded tactics and the fact that it was bought and paid for by friends of, ahem, Robert George. Moreover, the great majority of real science done on the subject shows that kids of committed gays and lesbians do just as well as kids of married straight parents.
Those who wish to redefine marriage want to throw out any connection to children and say that marriage is a union between two people who love each other and care for each other. By this definition, also called the revisionist view, both heterosexual couples and homosexual couples are eligible to marry.
That, Christine, is not called the “revisionist view.” It’s called the American view. Yours is a conservative Catholic view, and again, you are entitled to it. Those are not the laws of your nation, though.
Here’s Christine’s wrap-up, which roughly can be read, “in summary, and also in conclusion…”:
I am not against homosexuals having rights, but granting same-sex couples the right to marry is erroneous. Redefining marriage will deconstruct its original value. Louisiana should continue to defend the institution of marriage as outlined in the state constitution.
If you don’t support equality, Christine, you don’t support us having “rights.” And again, as the definition of marriage has changed innumerable times over human history, having evolved to a better place (away from the religious definitions that viewed women as chattel to be exchanged between men), there is no evidence for the contention that expanding the institution to allow any two consenting adults to commit to the rights and the responsibilities of marriage would weaken it in any way.
I’m shocked she made it through the article without talking about her “gay friends.”
For what it’s worth, the comments on the LSU paper’s website are going against Christine about three to one. I guess NOM’s sad delusion that there’s some sort of groundswell for bigotry among America’s college crowd is just that: a sad delusion.
