Agitprop 8: Stop Putting Gay Marriage Opponents On Trial
Image by ProComKelly via Flickr
Informed True/Slant reader that you are, you are likely aware that Proposition 8 is currently being challenged in federal court. You are probably also aware that Proposition 8 is the ballot measure that banned gay marriage in California in November 2008. What you may not know, however, is that rather than challenge Prop. 8 on the basis of the law, the pro-gay marriage side has instead decided to put the attitudes of anti-gay marriage activists on trial. The Christian Science Monitor reports:
Anti-gay marriage activists were acting out of animosity toward gays and lesbians when they pushed to pass Proposition 8, the state’s ban on gay marriage, lawyers arguing against the law attempted to show Wednesday.
The gay marriage side can do better than this. The claim that same sex marriage is afforded under the equal protection clause has already won the day in Massachusetts and Iowa. The argument “my opponents are mean” has a somewhat less successful track record.
All of which is to say: the claim that certain anti-gay marriage activists hold an “animus” towards gay people is not an argument for gay marriage in itself. (The syllogism, “some people who oppose gay marriage don’t like gay people, therefore gay marriage should be legal” has more in common with Woody Allen than Aristotle.) And disturbingly, caricaturing the views of anti-gay marriage activists as bigoted and biased only moves us in the direction of criminalizing certain attitudes and thoughts. This is a profoundly illiberal attack on freedom of thought.
Alas, it’s hardly unprecedented. Here in the US, mandated “tolerance” has been the order of the day for quite some time. The most glaring example of this is hate crimes legislation, which (bafflingly) holds that assaulting someone due to his sexual orientation is more appalling than attacking him for, say, his money. This bizarre attitude has been enshrined in law for over a decade, and has recently been expanded.
While hate crimes legislation and the marginalization of differing opinions expands, our liberties shrink. How ironic it would be if a case based upon expanding freedom – granting gay marriage – only ended up in contracting it.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
I find this entry interesting up to the point where you call out current hate crime laws… Someone being attacked because of their money isn’t done necessarily because of any outward signs. The guy with one million dollars in his pocket can walk down the street and pass as being just like everyone else. The person that is black cannot similarly hide his blackness. Thus the laws are there to provide a deterrent for those that would attack simply on grounds of her being black (or woman). Whereas being gay does not necessarily mean such inherent and outward displays of identity, there are certain cultural scenarios (Pride parades, gay clubs/bars) could imply that those in attendance are gay and thus make them targets. They deserve similar protection as well.
An interesting questions would be, do hate crimes laws apply to me (a straight man) if I march with friends in the Pride parade and am later assaulted by someone who saw me in the parade and assumed I am gay?