In Which I Am Insulted, But Not Named


I was totally going to respond to Treasure State Politics accusation that (without naming me or this blog directly- afraid to catch or promote The Gay?) I am a flippant, hasty writer and I see bigotry where there’s only the desire to discuss judicial activism.

Well, Pogie beat me to it.

In a post entitled: The Future of the Republican Party: A Commitment to Homophobia?, Don Pogreba writes:

Icon for Wikimedia project´s LGBT portal (Port...

Image via Wikipedia

It’s always both disheartening and a bit amusing watching conservatives contort themselves to justify discrimination against GLBT Americans, especially when it comes to marriage equality. They couch their arguments in specious claims about judicial activism, but the truth is, their position rests on the bigoted idea that a group of people can be denied equal protection under the law simply because some people are uncomfortable with relationships that are different from their own.

The latest example? The media darlings and deep thinkers at Treasure State Politics.

When this is your argument, you’re in trouble:

“I understand it is vital for every citizen, no matter their personal choices, to be guaranteed the same rights under our laws. Marriage isn’t a right, it’s a tradition. When a court begins to compromise the meaning of marriage that Montanans have overwhelmingly agreed on, the reverence of marriage can be quickly destroyed.”

The Supreme Court has disagreed with the idea that marriage is not a right, most specifically in the 1967 Loving v. Virginia decision, which outlawed anti-miscegenation laws. As the majority wrote:

“The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men …”

To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law.

Read the whole thing- it’s fantastic.
There are, however, a couple of NYAH-NYAH points I would like to make to Mr Shannon’s insistence that he wasn’t trying to denigrate LGBT persons:
  • When you begin by comparing same-sex marriage to polygamy, that’s offensive.
  • When you say that marriage is a tradition and not a right, not only are you wrong according to the Supreme Court (see Pogreba’s discussion above), you miss the point. Traditions change. For examples, see the following: slavery, women’s suffrage, military conscription, prohibition, comma usage, etc
  • When you bemoan “activist judges” and “legislating from the bench”, you simply are using terms to couch the infantile feelings that you didn’t get what you wanted from the ruling(s).
  • When you insist that you didn’t want to have a discussion about LGBT rights by denigrating same-sex marriage, you are ridiculous.
  • And by writing this crazy pants rebuttal, you prove my point entirely.
Next time, please don’t be afraid to name me or this blog. I don’t like being called out behind my back. It’s cheap.
And by the way, this post took me 24 minutes to write.
Hasty writer, indeed….

One comment on “In Which I Am Insulted, But Not Named

  1. [...] Post navigation ← In Which I Am Insulted, But Not Named [...]

    Like

Comments are closed.